NASA Contractor Report 4592 $9

Stratospheric Emissions Effects Database Develgpment Steven L. Baughcum, Stephen C. Henderson, Peter S . Hertel, Debra R. Maggiora, and Carlos A. Oncina

Contract NASl-19360 Prepared for Langley Research Center

M94-37607

unci a s

id1145 0013521

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940033096 2020-06-04T19:48:26+00:00Z

NASA Contractor Report 4592

Stratospheric Emissions Effects Database Devehpment Steven L. Baughcum, Stephen C. Henderson, Peter S . Hertel, Debra R. Maggiora, and Carlos A. Oncina Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 0 Seattle, Washington

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center 0 Hampton, Virginia 23681 -0001

Prepared for Langley Research Center under Contract NAS1-19360

July 1994

Executive Summary

This report describes the development of a stratospheric emissions effects database (SEED) of aircraft fuel burn and emissions from projected Year 2015 subsonic aircraft fleets and from projected fleets of high speed civil transports (HSCTs). inventories were developed under the NASA High Speed Research Systems Studies (HSRSS) contract NAS 1-19360, Task Assignment 3. This report also describes the development of a similar database of emissions from Year 1990 scheduled commercial passenger airline and air cargo traffic, developed under the NASA HSCT Systems Studies Contract NAS1-18377, Task Assignment 11.

The objective of this work was to initiate, develop, and maintain an engineering database for use by atmospheric scientists conducting the Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft (AESA) modeling studies. as N02), carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons (as CH4) have been calculated on a 1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude x 1 kilometer altitude grid and delivered to NASA as electronic files. describes the assumptions and methodology for the calculations and summarizes the results of these calculations.

fleet growth, aircraft technology, and engine technology. Flight frequencies for a possible fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs in active service were calculated. 2.0 HSCTs, assuming the same passenger demand. HSCT scenarios at two nitrogen oxide emission levels (corresponding to approximate NOx emission indices of 5 and 15 gramskg fuel) were calculated for Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 aircraft. Three-dimensional distribution of emissions for projected scheduled subsonic airliner, cargo, and turboprop aircraft were then calculated for cases with and without an HSCT fleet.

Emission scenarios were calculated for the 1990 scheduled subsonic airliner, cargo, and turboprop world fleets based on the May 1990 Official Airline Guide (OAG) using engineering data available at Boeing on 58 aircraft/engine combinations. In addition, aircraft/engine characteristics were combined to produce "generic" 1990 aircraft characteristics. generic aircraft was calculated to evaluate the quality of the "generic" versus the real aircraft scenario; and it was shown that signficant errors can occur by the use of "generic" aircraft types.

These emissions

Fuel burned and emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx.

This report

Scenarios for Year 201 5 were calculated by projecting subsonic

A similar schedule was projected for Mach

An emission scenario using these

PAGE BLAiYK i i i

L

Table of Contents

Sec t ion T i t l e

Executive Summary Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables

1. Introduct ion

2. Year 2015 Mar et Forecast 2.1 Total Passenger Demand 2.2 HSCT Passenger Market Forecast 2 .3 HSCT Routing and Frequencies

is s ion s C a1 cul a t i on Met hod ol ogy 3.1 Overview of Emissions Calculation 3.2 Subsonic Emissions Methodology

3.2.1 Engine Manufacturer's Methodology 3.2.2 Methodology Used for Global Emissions

Database 3.3 HSCT Flight Profiles 3 .4 Emissions Calculation Procedures 3.5 Engineering Checks 3.6 Scenario Checks 3.7 Water Vapor Emissions 3.8 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3.9 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

4. SCT E m i s s i o ~ Scena 4.1 HSCT Description 4.2 HSCT Mission Profiles 4.3 Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 Results

P a g e

... 111

V

vii xi

1

5 5 7 8

1 5 1 5 1 6 1 6

1 7 2 3 2 5 2 8 3 0 3 1 3 1 3 1

3 3 3 3 3 5 3 6

5. Year 1990 Scheduled Aircraft Emission Scenarios 4 7 5.1 1990 Scheduled Airliner and Cargo Scenario 4 7 5.2 1990 Scheduled Turboprop Scenario 5 7 5.3 Validation Tests 6 0 5.4 1990 Generic Fleet Analysis 6 2

T F V

n 7

Table of Contents (cont)

S e c t i o n T i t l e P a g e

6. Year 2015 Subsonic Aircraft Scenarios 6 7 6.1 Distribution between Aircraft Types 6 7 6.2 Cargo Fleet Projection 7 2

6.4 2015 Scheduled Jet Passenger Traffic Results 7 6 6.5 2015 Cargo Results 8 0 6.6 2015 Turboprop Results 8 1

6.3 2015 Aircraft Technology 7 4

7. Analysis and 8 3 7.1 Summary of Results 8 6 7.2 Comparison between 1990 and 2015 9 2 7.3 Comparison of 1990 Results with Reported

Jet Fuel Consumption 9 7 7.4 Conclusions 9 9 7.5 Database Availability 1 0 0

8. e f e r e n c e s 1 0 1

9. Glossary 103

Appendix A. HSCT City Codes A - 1 Appendix B. HSCT Flight Frequencies B- 1 Appendix C. HSCT Routing Table c - 1

Appendix E. Altitude Distribution of Emissions E- 1 Appendix D. HSCT Mission Profile Methodology D- 1

Appendix F. 3-Dimensional Scenario Data Format F- 1 Appendix G. Description of Global Atmospheric Emissions

Code (GAEC) G- 1

List of Figures

Figure No. Ti t le

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

1-1. 2-1. 2-2. 2- 3 3-1.

3-2.

3-3.

3-4.

3-5.

4-1. 4-2.

4-3.

4-4.

4-5.

4-6.

Schematic of emission scenario calculation process Distribution of HSCT passenger demand by region. HSCT route system for the year 2015. Waypoint routing example, Frankfurt-Bangkok The referenced emission index (REI) for NOx as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. The referenced emission index (REI) for hydrocarbons as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. The referenced emission index (REI) for carbon monoxide as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. Mission profile for Mach 2.4 HSCT from Seattle to Tokyo. Mission profile for Mach 2.4 HSCT from Seattle to London. Mach 2.4 HSCT Planform NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.0, EI(NOx)=5) and Mach 2.4, EI(NOx)=5 HSCT fleets. (summed over latitude and longitude). Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet. Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet. Cumulative fraction of fuel burned, NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 fleet. NOx emissions for a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude) (bottom panel), considering only the HSCT emissions.

v i i

P a g e

4 8

1 1 1 3 2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

3 4 3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

List of Figures (cont)

Figure No. T i t l e

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

4-7.

4-8.

4-9.

5-1.

5-2.

5-3.

5-4.

5 - 5 .

5-6.

5-7.

6-1.

6-2.

Fuel burned as a function of latitude for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet only (summed over altitude and longitude). Cumulative fraction of fuel burned as a function of latitude for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet only (summed over altitude and longitude). Emission indices for NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.4, nominal EI(NOx)=5 (at cruise) fleet only. Emission indices for NOx, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo scenario. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet (summed over latitude and longitude). Cumulative fraction of fuel burned, NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet. Fuel burned as a function of latitude (summed over altitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet. Cumulative fraction of fuel burned as a function of latitude (summed over altitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled turboprop aircraft fleet (summed over latitude and longitude). Fuel burned as a function of latitude for the 1990 scheduled turboprop aircraft fleet (summed over altitude and longitude). Flow chart of Seats and Departures Forecast Methodology Passenger available seat mile distribution between different size aircraft for September 199 1 and the NASA study forecast for 2015 (with and without an HSCT fleet).

P a g e

4 4

4 5

4 6

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 8

5 9

7 0

7 1

List of Figures (cont)

Figure No. Ti t le

Figure 6-3. Cargo aircraft size distributions for 1991 and

Figure 6-4. Emission indices for NOx, carbon monoxide, and forecast for 2015.

hydrocarbons plotted as a function of altitude for the 2015 scheduled passenger jet traffic, assuming no HSCT fleet is in operation.

(airliner, cargo, and turboprop) as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude)(bottom pane

Figure 7-2. NOx emissions for projected 2015 scheduled air traffic (airliner, cargo, and turboprop) as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude)(bottom panel) assuming no Annual NOx emissions as a function of altitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 EI(N0x) = 5 HSCTs.

of altitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 EI(N0x) = 5 HSCTs. Annual fuel usage as a function of latitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic , with and without a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 EI(N0x) = 5 HSCTs.

Figure 7-1. NOx emissions for 1990 scheduled air traffic

Figure 7-3.

Figure 7-4. Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function

Figure 7-5.

P a g e

7 3

7 9

8 4

8 5

9 3

9 4

9 5

List of Figures (cont)

Figure No. T i t l e Page

Figure 7-6. Cumulative fuel usage as a function of latitude for 9 6 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 EI(N0x) = 5 HSCTs.

X

List of Tables

Table No.

Table 1-1.

Table 2-1.

Table 2-2.

Table 2-3. Table 2-4 Table 3-1.

Table 3-2.

Table 4-1.

. Table 4-2.

Table 4-3.

Table 4-4.

Table 4-5.

Table 4-6.

Table 5-1.

Tit l e

Emissions Scenarios Developed for the 1993 NASA AESA Assessment. Annual Growth Rates (as percent) in Scheduled Passenger Demand Determined by Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Projected growth in revenue passenger miles (RPMs) from 1991 to 2015 using the common annual growth rate HSCT Network Analysis Example of waypoint routing Comparison of the Global Atmospheric Emission Code (GAEC) Results with Detailed Engineering Model Calculations (BMAP/EMIT) For Four Aircraft Missions Using One Aircraft/Engine Type Recommended emission indices in units of grams emission/kilograrn fuel for 1990 and 2015 Summary of HSCT model characteristics used in the development of the Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCT emission scenarios. Comparison of Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 fleet fuel use Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.0 HSCT, EI=5 flight segments. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.0, EI=15 flight segments. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.4, EI=5 flight segments. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.4, EI=15 flight segments. Departure Statistics for 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft.

P a g e

2

5

6

9 1 2 2 9

3 2

3 3

3 6

3 7

3 7

3 8

3 8

4 8

xi

List of Tables (cont)

Table No.

Table 5-2.

Table 5-3.

Table 5-4.

Table 5-5.

Table 5-6.

Table 5-7.

Table 5-8.

Table 5-9.

Table 6-1.

Table 6-2. Table 6-3.

Table 6-4.

Table 6-5.

Table 6-6.

Tit le

Globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for each aircraft included in the 1990 scheduled airline and cargo database. Departure statistics for 1990 scheduled turboprops Globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for the 1990 scheduled turboprops Comparison of calculated 1990 fuel burned with airline reported fuel burned for two aircraft types (Boeing 727-200 and 747) Aircraft types included in the construction of the 1990 "generic" database. Departure statistics for the 1990 generic aircraft fleet Fuel burned, emissions (NOx, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide), and emission indices for the different generic aircraft types, summed over altitude, latitude, and longitude. Comparison of the globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for the 1990 generic database relative to that calculated using actual 1990 aircraft. Classes of "Generic" Subsonic Passenger Aircraft Used in the 2015 Scenario Construction Target Departure Levels Classes of "Generic" Subsonic YR 2015 Cargo Airplane Used in the 2015 Scenario Construction Technology Improvement Factors for 20 15 Aircraft Relative to 1990 Technology Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Jet Passenger Fleet (no HSCT fleet exists) Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices by Aircraft Type for 2015 Scheduled Subsonic Airliners if no HSCT Fleet Exists

xii

P a g e

5 0

5 7

5 7

6 1

6 3

6 5

6 5

6 6

6 7

6 8 7 2

7 5

7 6

7 7

List of Tables (cont)

Table No. T i t l e P a g e

Table 6-7.

Table 6-8.

Table 6-9.

Table 6-10.

Table 6-11.

Table 6-12.

Table 7-1.

Table 7-2.

Table 7-3.

Table 7-4.

Table 7-5.

Table 7-6.

Table 7-7.

Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Jet Passenger Fleet (HSCT fleet exists) Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices by Aircraft Type for 2015 Scheduled Subsonic Airliners if 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs were in Operation Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Jet Cargo Fleet Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices for 2015 Scheduled Jet Cargo Aircraft Departure Statistics for 2015 Scheduled Turboprop Aircraft Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices for 20 15 Scheduled Turboprop Aircraft Summary of annual global fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide for the 1990 emission inventories. Summary of annual global carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for 1990 the emission inventories. Summary of annual global fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide for the 2015 individual component emission inventories. Summary of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the individual components of the 2015 emission inventories. Summary of fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide for the total scheduled air traffic scenarios for 2015. Summary of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the total scheduled air traffic scenarios for 2015. Comparison of Calculated 1990 Jet Fuel Usage with Reported Jet Fuel Use.

7 8

7 8

8 0

8 0

8 1

8 1

8 6

8 7

8 8

8 9

9 0

9 1

9 7

1. Introduction

A major goal of the NASA High Speed Research Program (HSRP) and of the Boeing High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) program is to design an HSCT that will not cause a significant impact on the stratospheric ozone layer. To help achieve that goal, NASA has funded the Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft (AESA) project to assess the impact of a fleet of commercial supersonic transports on the atmosphere. To support that assessment, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were contracted to calculate three- dimensional inventories of emissions from fleets of HSCTs. Scenarios of projected subsonic air traffic, both with and without HSCT fleets, were also calculated for use in the atmospheric assessment. These fleets were projected for the year 2015. calculated for aircraft fleets in use in 1990, as a reference case.

Emissions were also

The scenarios developed are summarized in Table 1-1. Boeing calculated emission scenarios for fleets of Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCTs, while McDonnell Douglas analyzed Mach 1.6 HSCT fleets. Boeing calculated emission scenarios for scheduled airline, cargo, and turboprop aircraft based on schedules published in the Official Airline Guide (OAG) or projected from them. evaluated emissions for military, charter, and other non-scheduled air traffic, including non-OAG traffic within the former Soviet Union and China.

McDonnell Douglas

This work is an extension of the earlier Boeing work (Reference 1 ) of scheduled air traffic emissions. projected flight schedules, the calculations of emissions were based on average fuel consumption and emissions at cruise conditions. In the new work reported here, fuel consumption and emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC) are considered for all flight segments and are reported on a three- dimensional grid with a resolution of 1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude x 1 km altitude.

Although the previous work

1

T a b l e 1-1. Emissions Scenarios Developed for the 1993 NASA AESA Assessment. (Components of Each Scenario are Also Shown)

Scenario ponents of Scenario

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

1990 Fleet

20 15 Subsonic Fleet (without HSCTs).

2015 Mach 1.6 HSCT (EI=5)*

2015 Mach 1.6

2015 Mach 2.4 HSCT (EI=5)*

2015 Mach 2.4 HSCT (EI=15)*

2015 Mach 2.4 HSCT (EI=45)*

2015 Mach 2.0 HSCT (EI=5)*

2015 Mach 2.0 HSCT (EI= 15)*

Scheduled (OAG) airline, cargo, and turboprop; charter; military; and other (non- OAG, including internal former Soviet Union, China) Year 2015 Scheduled (OAG) airline, cargo, and turboprop; charter; military; and other (non-OAG, including internal former Soviet Union, China), assumes no HSCT fleet exists Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 1.6 HSCTs with EI=5

Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 1.6 HSCTs with EI=15 Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 2.4 HSCTs with EI=5 Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 2.4 HSCTs with EI=15

Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 2.4 HSCTs with EI=45

Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 2.0 HSCTs with EI=5 Scenario B with scheduled subsonic airlines revised to account for HSCTs and a fleet of Mach 2.0 HSCTs with EI=15

*Scheduled subsonic fleet emissions are revised to account for flights from HSCTs. Also, NOx Emission Index (EI, in grams of NOx as NO2 emitted per kg of fuel) are approximate and refer to the nominal emission levels at cruise altitudes for the HSCT fleet in the scenarios; E1 for subsonics will be different for each projected aircraft type. Scenario G was calculated by NASA by scaling the NOx emissions in the Mach 2.4, EI=15, HSCT data set by a factor of three, for parametric studies.

2

Three-dimensional (1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude x 1 km altitude) distributions of fuel burned, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC) were calculated by Boeing for the following:

1990 scheduled airliner, cargo, and turboprop aircraft 0 Projected 2015 scheduled subsonic airliners (assuming no HSCT

fleet exists) Projected 201 5 scheduled subsonic airliners (assuming an HSCT fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs were flying) Projected 2015 scheduled cargo aircraft

0 Projected 20 15 scheduled turboprop aircraft Projected 2015 HSCT traffic for 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs with nominal NOx emission indices of 5 and 15 gm NOx/kg fuel burned at cruise. Projected 2015 HSCT traffic for 500 Mach 2.0 HSCTs with nominal NOx emission indices of 5 and 15 gm NOx/kg ‘fuel burned at cruise.

Given the fuel burned in each grid cell, emissions of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide can be determined from the fuel properties.

The emissions computation process is shown schematically in Figure 1-1. In order to generate the emissions for each scenario, it is necessary to account for the aircraft performance, engine performance and emission characteristics, and market data of traffic projections, flight frequencies, city-pairs, and routing. are combined to calculate the mission profiles of fuel burned and emissions which are then projected onto the latitude x longitude x altitude grid. Mission profiles are calculated based on performance. The flight altitude of an HSCT will vary with its cruise Mach number, increasing with higher speeds. The cruise altitude will also increase during the flight as fuel is burned and the aircraft becomes lighter. The details of this process are described in this report.

These inputs

This report documents the assumptions, methods, and results

Many of the ground rules and some of the details have used in the scenarios developed for the 1993 NASA HSRP interim assessment. been described earlier in annual reports of the AESA program (References 2-4) and will be discussed in more depth later in this report.

3

a Performance

(Ci ty-pai rs Fit. Freq.

Performance

I I Database

Global

McDonnell Douglas 1 D a ~ I

x Emissions A itabase

Emissions 1 Data 1 Figure 1-1 . Schematic of emission scenario calculation process

The work on HSCT and Year 2015 emission scenarios described in this report has been conducted under NASA Langley Contract NAS1-19360, Task 3. The work on 1990 emission scenarios was funded under NASA Langley Contract NAS1-18377, Task 1 1 . NASA Langley Task Manager was Donald L. Maiden.

The

Within the Boeing HSCT engineering group, overall program

The principal investigator of the task management was provided by Malcolm I. K. Macannon, John D. Vachal, and John H. Gerstle. was Steven L. Baughcum. Henderson, Terry Higman, Thomas T. Odell, and Richard Bateman in market analysis; Dik M. Chan in HSCT performance analysis; Stephen M. Happenny in HSCT propulsion; Carlos A. Oncina in subsonic propulsion; Peter S. Hertel in computer support; and Debra R. Maggiora in data analysis.

Chief contributors were Stephen C.

4

2. Year 20115 Market Forecast

assenger D e m a n d

The passenger demand, which forms tile basis of the year 2015 route system emissions analysis, was done in cooperation with

Data regarding growth rate forecasts were exchanged, and a single growth scenario was devised which resulted in a common forecast for passenger demand. produce passenger demand projections as part of normal business activity. (References 5-6) These projections were used as each company's submittal to create the common forecast.

ouglas.

Both companies

After exchanging forecast growth rate data, Boeing and onnell Douglas agreed that a simple averaging of growth rates by

regional market would suffice to create a common forecast. Table 2-1 shows the McDonnell Douglas forecast (Reference 6), the Boeing forecast (Reference 5 ) , and the common forecast used in the analysis.

Table 2-1. Annual Growth Rates (as percent) in Scheduled Passenger Demand Determined by Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

Passenger Demand Growth Rate Percentage

Douglas Boeing "Common" Rates McDonnell

~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~

From (Year) 1990 1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005 2010

To (Year) 2000 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 2015

Region:

North America - Europe 5.0 5.1 4.3 4.2 5.0 4.2 4.1 4.0

North America - Asia 11.7 8.5 7.4 7.2 10.1 8.8 8.6 8.0

North America - Latin 6.6 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.6 5.1 5.1 5.0 America

Europe - Asia 8.4 8.8 7.8 7.3 8.6 7.6 7.1 7.0

Intra Asia 10.7 8.1 7.2 7.0 9.4 8.4 8.1 8.0

5

The revenue passenger miles were projected to year 2015 using the average annual growth rates obtained from this common forecast. These are summarized below in Table 2-2 for different regions.

e 2-2. Projected growth in revenue passenger miles (RPMs) from 1991 to 2015 using the common annual growth rate

1991 RPMs "common" Annual 2015 RPMs Region (mil l ions) Growth Rate (mi I I ions)

Domestic United StatedCanada and US-Canada North America-Europe

North America- Middle East North America -Latin America* Intra Europe Asia - Europe India Subcontinent- Europe Middle East - Europe Africa - Europe Latin America - Europe Intra Asia Asia-Af rica Domestic Japan Domestic India Subcontinent India Subcontinent- Middle East Domestic Middle East Domestic Africa Domestic Latin America People's Republic of China- International Former Soviet Union - International

Total

355682 115080 79080 3444 35744 97208 26403 10065 16557 22216 24111 85260 16443 32849 7670 10713 13684 9932 2795 1 9678 12199

1011969

5.13% 4.50% 9.10% 4.50% 5.70% 4.50% 7.80% 3.90% 3.90% 6.67% 4.50% 8.70% 8.70% 4.50% 8.70% 8.70% 4.50% 4.50% 8.90% 9.10% 4.50%

1181686 330972 639531 9906

135208 279572 160140 25210 41472

69345 631325 121755 94474 56794 79325 39354 28565

21 6305 78267 35084

104638

4358928

"Latin America = Central America + South America + Caribbean

6

2 . 2 HSCT Passenger Market Forecast

Because supersonic booms will likely be unacceptable for flights over land, the HSCT is expected to fly supersonically only over water. expected that they would be minimized in order to get the maximum productivity from the HSCT. order to position the aircraft between viable intercontinental cities. Using these assumptions and the growth projections described above, the HSCT demand network was developed using the following ground rules:

While subsonic flights over land would be permitted, it is

Some subsonic flights would occur in

0 No supersonic flight over land;

* Flight distances must be greater than 2000 nautical miles;

0 No more than 50% of the flight distance routed over land (Le, >50% of flight distance flown supersonically)

0 Flight paths could be altered using waypoints to avoid flying over land but with no more than 20% diversion from great circle routing;

0 Great circle paths would be flown between waypoints.

0 Passenger demand between two HSCT city pairs must be able to support 1 flight/day at 70% load factor in 2015.

These ground rules were developed between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and represent a consensus on the requirements to be met for viable HSCT service. Based on these ground rules, a set of candidate city-pairs and route paths was developed. A single set of city-pairs and flight frequencies was agreed upon which met the ground rules described above and met the further requirement that the HSCT route system would need about 500 active Mach 2.4 HSCTs with 300 seat capacity to meet the passenger demand.

Using the common projections to 2015, the relative HSCT passenger demand by region is shown in Figure 2-1. The North

7

America-Asia and North America-Europe markets are predicted to dominate.

North America- AsidOceania

North America-Hawaii

Intra Asia Europe- Latin America

Figure 2-1. Distribution of HSCT passenger demand by region.

2 . 3 HSCT Routing and Frequencies

The passenger demand estimate for the year 2015 was partitioned between the different city-pairs to create a single universal airline network. airport curfews.

Flights were scheduled to satisfy local The HSCT network was then developed as follows:

0 Equal penetration assumed in all markets.

0 City-pairs unable to support at least one HSCT flight per day with at least 70% of load capacity in 2015 were allocated to the subsonic fleet and dropped from the HSCT network.

0 HSCT aircraft were then allocated to maximize the utilization of SO0 Mach 2.4 HSCTs.

8

0 One hour through times (flights with refueling stops) and 1.5 hour turnaround times were assumed.

Pas seng er s/D ay

Seats Load Factor (%)

Units Required

For Mach 1.6 and Mach 2.0, flights were scheduled to maintain the same passenger demands as for the Mach 2.4 HSCT. are summarized for different HSCTs and for the subsonic aircraft they replace in Table 2-3

The results

386,224 386,778 386,778 386,778

3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0

69.6 70.0 70.0 70.0

9 6 1 5 9 4 5 3 2 5 0 0

Table 2-3. HSCT Network Analysis I

Mach Number

0 . 8 4 1 . 6 2 . 0 2 . 4

Daily Utilization (hours)

ASM/Y ear (Billions)

17.0 17.2 16.6 16.3

809.6 830.8 830.8 830.8

The HSCT fleet would carry 387,000 people/day, with an average load factor of 70%. The average stage length was 3400 nautical miles with an average diversion from great circle routing of 4.2%. Based on these assumptions of high utilization, the HSCT would achieve a market penetration of 48% on these routes. These high utilization rates are consistent with the scheduling guidelines; and they probably represent an upper limit utilization for 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs in active service.

The higher speed aircraft would be able to fly more trips and thereby carry more people per day per aircraft.

SCTs would be required for slower aircraft to meet the same passenger demand. These calculations result in a Mach 2.4 HSCT active fleet flying 16.3 hours/day, while the Mach 1.6 HSCT fleet would be used, on average, about 17.2 hours per day. While 500 active Mach 2.4 aircraft are required to carry all the passengers, 532 active Mach 2.0 or 594 active Mach 1.6 HSCTs would be required to

A larger number of

9

meet the same passenger demand. The average total fleet utilization would likely be somewhat lower than this as additional aircraft would be needed for replacement aircraft during periodic maintenance, etc.

The HSCT emissions study departure network is graphically depicted in Figure 2-2. pair codes and identifies the cities. included in Appendices B and C. Appendix B lists origin, destination, and "via" cities (refueling stops required when the origin-destination distance is greater than the 5000 nautical mile nominal range for the HSCT designs now contemplated). Also listed are flights per day and the great circle' paths and the HSCT flight-path distances between cities. Since it was assumed for this study that supersonic flight over land will be prohibited, the HSCT flight path distances are greater than the great circle paths due to the routings that have been defined to avoid supersonic flight overland and to minimize subsonic overland flight. This resulted in HSCT service between 199 city-pairs. Because some HSCT flights are routed through the same cities, 386 mission profiles were calculated to fly this network. contains a list of the departures and the waypoint routing used to avoid supersonic flights overland.

Appendix A contains a list of the HSCT city Details of the network are

Appendix C

1 0

Y E 2 9)

v)

Y

11

Flight Path RoutinP to Minimize Fliyht Over Land - An ExamDle

Flying the shortest (great circle) flight path between the cities in the HSCT route system results in a large percentage (>50%) of the total system flight path occurring over land (and at subsonic speeds). Altering the flight path to attempt to minimize overland flight can greatly reduce the percentage of overland flight with a small penalty in total distance flown.

As an example, consider flights from Frankfurt (FRA) to Bangkok (BKK). The shortest (great circle) flight path is 4841 nautical miles, all over land and hence would be flown subsonically. The flight path between FRA and BKK was altered by using "waypoints", defined latitude-longitude positions that the HSCT is required to fly over. the waypoints). As shown in Figure 2-3, the waypoints route the HSCT flight path subsonically from Frankfurt to near Venice, then supersonically down the Adriatic, across the Mediterranean to the Sinai, with a direct path across the Arabian peninsula, around India to Bangkok. the amount of exceeds the 5000 nautical mile design range of the present HSCT configurations. Bahrain to refuel (and pick up passengers). After a stop at Bahrain, the HSCT resumes the flight path defined above. (more efficient) flight mode is increased from zero to 4319 nautical miles for a 28% increase in total miles flown, including a stop.

(The airplane flies a great circle path between

As illustrated in Table 2-4, this path, although reducing subsonic flight over land to 1862 nautical miles,

The flight path must be modified to include a stop at

The supersonic

Table 2-4. Example of waypoint routing Great Circle Path Over Water Over Land

Route Segment Distance Distance Distance Distance (nmi ) ( n m i ) (nmi) (nmi )

Frankfurt - Bangkok 4 8 4 1 4 8 4 1 0 4 8 4 1 (Great Circle Route)

HSCT Waypoint Routing Route:

1862 6 1 8 0 4 3 1 9

Frankfurt - Bahrain 2 3 9 7 2 7 2 0 1396 1324 (with waypoin ts)

Bahrain - Bangkok (with waypoints)

2895 3 4 6 0 2 9 2 3 5 3 8

1 2

8 8 a' 8

8

I 1

Figure 2-3. Waypoint routing example, Frankfurt - Bangkok.

1 3

Each city-pair routing, including "via" cities, was examined to determine the best waypoint-guided path to minimize overland subsonic flying. This work was simplified by using as a base a set of waypoints and routings developed within the International Working Group. other city-pairs and routings added to create the final HSCT route system with each city-pair flight path routed by hand for maximum supersonic cruise. network, with all the waypoint-guided flight paths shown,

These routings were modified to some extent, and many

Figure 2-2 shows an overview of the HSCT route

1

3. Emissions Calculation Methodology

3 . 1 Overview of Emissions Calculation

The primary emissions from aircraft engines are water vapor

Nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (H20) and carbon dioxide (C02) produced by the combustion of jet fuel. are also produced in the combustors and vary in quantity according to the temperature, pressure, and other combustor conditions. Nitrogen oxides consist of both nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxides (N02). impurities in jet fuel. power settings, but its characterization is beyond the scope of the current work.

Sulfur dioxide may also be produced due to sulfur Soot is also produced, particularly at high

The emission levels from aircraft engines are discussed by Miake-Lye (Reference 7). The emissions are characterized in terms of an emission index in units of grams of emission per kilogram of fuel burned. For NOx, the emission index [EI(NOx)] is given as gram equivalent NO2 to avoid ambiguity. Although hydrocarbon measurements of aircraft emissions by species have been made (Reference S), only total hydrocarbon emissions are considered in this work, with the hydrocarbon emission index [EI(HC)] given as equivalent methane (CH4). I

Nitrogen oxides are produced in the high temperature regions of the combustor primarily through the thermal dissociation of oxygen followed by oxygen atom reactions with molecular nitrogen. Thus, the NOx produced by an aircraft engine is sensitive to the length of the combustor, the pressure, and the temperature within the combustor. engine, being highest at high thrust conditions. By contrast, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are highest at low power settings where the temperature of the engine is low and incomplete combustion occurs.

The emissions vary with the power setting of the

Emission indices of NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons for commercial aircraft engines are measured at four power settings (7%, 30%, 85%, and loo%), corresponding to idle, approach, climbout and take-off, as part of their certification by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These four data points of measured emissions are used as the basis

1 5

for the calculation of the emissions as a function of fuel flow rate. This is described in more detail below.

Once a schedule of city-pairs and departures has been determined, the next step in the development of the scenario data set is to use aircraft/engine performance and emissions data to calculate the fuel use and emissions as a function of altitude and location. For each mission, fuel consumption and emissions are calculated including all the flight segments (taxi out, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, taxi in), distributing the emissions as a function of space along the route between city-pairs. are then combined for all flights into the resulting three-dimensional database.

The emissions

3 . 2 Subsonic Emissions Methodology

3 . 2 . 1 Engine Manufacturer's Methodology

The process for calculating aircraft engine emissions of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for airplane missions requires three sources of information: engine emission information as contained in the ICAO emission databank, engine performance data as provided by engine thermodynamic cycle models, and airplane performance data. thermodynamic cycle data, the combustor inlet temperature (T3 ) and pressure (P3) can be calculated at different flight altitudes, Mach numbers, and for different thrust conditions with installation effects. The engine companies have developed equations to calculate the emission levels from T3 and P3. (e.g., Reference 9).

Using the

Since aircraft emission measurements are generally made at static sea level conditions, scaling relationships have been developed to account for the temperature and pressure changes which would occur at flight altitudes. (e.g., Reference 10)

The following equations which require knowledge of the combustor inlet temperature (T3) and pressure (P3) are used by Boeing to scale emissions from the sea level test conditions to a1 ti tude:

1 6

For constant

EICO

EIHC

EINOx

where

combustor inlet temperature (T3):

carbon monoxide (CO) emission index at altitude hydrocarbon (HC) emission index at altitude NOx emission index at altitude CO emission index at sea level conditions €IC emission index at sea level conditions NOx emission index at sea level conditions combustor inlet pressure at sea level conditions combustor inlet pressure at altitude specific humidity in lbs of water/lbs of air at altitude

The equations employ the correlations developed for ambient test site corrections to correct for altitude.

Using these relationships and the dependence of NOx on T3 for

This will not be discussed here, since each engine, emission levels could be calculated from the thermodynamic cycle analysis. such a method is too computationally complex to be appropriate for the calculation of a global inventory of aircraft emissions. simplified approach used in this study is described below.

The

3.2.2 Methodology Used for Global Emissions Database

A methodology has been developed at Boeing which correlates the emission levels and the fuel flow rates based on the equations in section 3.2.1. (Joe Zeeben, private communication). flow rate is normally calculated as part of aircraft/engine

Since the fuel

1 7

performance data, this provides a simple way to calculate emissions which can be implemented into a global inventory analysis.

In this method, the fuel flow rate during a mission segment is calculated from performance data. The emission index at sea level conditions (REI) at this fuel flow rate is then calculated using the measured emission indices reported to ICAO at four power settings (fuel flow rates) and interpolating to the calculated fuel flow rate. The emission idex (EI) at altitude is then calculated by scaling for ambient temperature and pressure effects.

The methodology uses the following equations for constant fuel flow factor (Wf/Q1.5) :

EICO = REIC0/60*4

EIHC = REIHC/60.4

EINOX = REINOX * 0 * e (-19(0-0.0063))

where

carbon monoxide (CO) emission index at altitude hydrocarbon (HC) emission index at altitude NOx emission index at altitude referenced CO emission index at sea level conditions referenced HC emission index at sea level conditions referenced NOx emission index at sea level conditions

Tamb/5 18.67 Pam b/ 1 4.69 6

ambient temperature in degrees Rankine ambient pressure in pounds per square inch absolute

specific humidity in lbs of watedlbs of air at altitude

fuel flow (kg/hour)

1.5 fuel flow parameter = Wf/O

1 8

The exponents of 6 and 0 were chosen solely for their ability to collapse the data. Figures 3-1 to 3-3 show the emissions results for one particular engine, where REI is plotted as a function of the fuel flow factor. The calculated data depicted were generated with the aid of an engine thermodynamic cycle deck over a range of altitudes and flight conditions. Temperature and pressure profiles from a 1976 US Standard Atmosphere were used. Superimposed on the plots are the four measured data points corresponding to the ICAO power settings. When plotted as a log versus log plot, a correlation is reached which is adequate for scenario calculations. If data at more conditions than the ICAO certification measured power settings were available, particularly at altitude and low power, a more detailed analysis might be warranted.

Note that at sea level standard conditions, the emission index is equal to the referenced emission index. installation effects.

The ICAO Wf is scaled for

1 9

1 00

n

10

1 100 1000 10000

Figure 3-1. The referenced emission index (REI) for NOx as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. Both measured ICAO data and emission indices calculated using thermodynamic cycle data are shown.

The NOx emission index increases with increasing fuel flow (see Figure 3-1). between fuel flow points is straightforward.

The correlation is monotonic and the interpolation

For hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, emissions drop off

The emission indices plateau at higher power dramatically at higher fuel flow rates (Le., higher thrusts). Figures 3-2 and 3-3). settings, particularly for CO.

(see

In order to calculate total flight emissions the data must be corrected for the installation effects on fuel flow. While different approaches could be taken to accomplish this, for these scenarios knowledge of the true installation effects were used.

2 0

A A A

1

.1

.01 100 1000 10000

Fuel Flow Parameter

Figure 3-2. The referenced emission index (REI) for hydrocarbons as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. indices calculated using thermodynamic cycle data are shown.

Both measured ICAO data and emission

In an attempt to treat all investigated ICAO engines equally, two different types of curve fits were used. interpolation on Figure 3- 1 (after correcting for installation) was used. A two point linear extrapolation was used for lower and higher fuel flows, if necessary. For HC and CO (Figures 3-2 and 3-3), a least- squares fitted line of the four ICAO (installation corrected) data points was determined. A second line was plotted through the two high power (85% and 100%) points. at the intercept of these two lines.

For NOx a linear

A new point was then generated

21

100

10

1

H lCAO Measured Data

.1 100 1000 10000

Parameter

Figure 3-3. The referenced emission index (REI) for carbon monoxide as a function of fuel flow parameter for the CFM-56 engine. . Both measured ICAO data and emission indices calculated using thermodynamic cycle data are shown.

A comparison of the engine manufacturer method to the Boeing fuel flow method was made using the above mentioned curve fits and airplane performance parameters from a 400 nautical mile mission. The results are in good agreement and will be described elsewhere. (Joe Zeeben, private communication)

The next step in calculating the emissions for a particular airplane mission employed the use of a Boeing proprietary airplane mission analysis program to simulate the airplane mission and determine the fuel usage of a particular aircraft for a particular mi s si o n .

2 2

3.3 HSCT Flight Profiles

In calculating the flight profiles, all aircraft were assumed to fly according to engineering design. altitudes were calculated as a climbing cruise with the altitude determined by the weight of the aircraft. For the HSCT, supersonic flight was allowed only over water and thus the mission profiles were more complicated than for subsonic aircraft.

For subsonic aircraft, cruise

Actual flight profiles between city-pairs were used to distribute emissions during takeoff, subsonic and supersonic climb and cruise, and descent. burned and emissions were then calculated onto the database grid. Two missions which are representative of the way in which an actual HSCT would be flown are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The simplest mission (Figure 3-4) is a flight as Seattle to Tokyo. The HSCT would take off and climb subsonically and then supersonically to a supersonic cruise altitude. It would then fly at supersonic cruise at the optimum altitude determined by its gross weight. As it approached Tokyo, it would descend and land. The cumulative fraction of the total NO, emissions is plotted on the right axis. The plot illustrates that about 40% of the NO, emissions would occur during takeoff, climb, and supersonic climb.

Based on these mission profiles, the fuel

almost exclusively over water, such

25 I I

20

15

10

5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Distance (nautical miles)

c 0

Figure 3-4. Mission profile for Mach 2.4 HSCT from Seattle to Tokyo.

2 3

A more complicated but still common mission is a flight in which one leg would be flown subsonically over land. This is illustrated in Figure 3-5 by the flight from Seattle to London. The HSCT would take off and climb to subsonic cruise altitudes. It would then cruise at subsonic speeds until reaching Hudson Bay where it would begin to climb supersonically. It would then cruise at supersonic speeds (altitude determined by the optimum performance) until descending near London. A substantial amount of the NO, emissions would occur during the subsonic climb, subsonic cruise, and supersonic climb.

25 , t

20

15

10

5

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Distance (nautical miles)

r 0

Figure 3-5. Mission profile for Mach 2.4 HSCT from Seattle to London.

A still more complicated mission, which was included in the calculations but not shown graphically, is a flight in which the aircraft might descend and climb several times to avoid flying supersonically over land. An example would be the Frankfurt to Bangkok route mentioned earlier (Figure 2-3). would fly subsonically over Europe, supersonically over the Mediterranean, subsonically over Arabia (stopping in Bahrain) supersonically over the Indian Ocean, and then subsonically inland over the Malay peninsula.

In this case, the HSCT

Because of the extra fuel required for

2 4

supersonic climbs, such flight profiles were kept to a minimum in the scenario development.

3.4 Emissions Calculation Procedures

Boeing maintains an engineering database of aircraft performance and emissions characteristics for a number of subsonic passenger and cargo jets. For the work described here, 57 subsonic aircraftlengine configurations were used to calculate the emissions of the 1990 scenarios. Less detailed data were used for calculations of the Concorde aircraft and for turboprop aircraft. Using this database, technology modifications and improvements were projected to 2015 for subsonic jet aircraft. based on the current Boeing baseline aircraft. The calculations will be described later in more detail for each component scenario. The general methodology is described below.

Calculations for the Mach 2.4 HSCT were

All aircraft were assumed to fly at designed performance. Altitudes and mission profiles were calculated based on the performance of the aircraft and its mission weight. Air traffic control constraints and routings were not considered. departures for each aircraft type were based on Official Airline Guide (OAG) flight schedules for May 1990 and on projected schedules for 2015. For each aircraft type considered, a separate three- dimensional data set of fuel burned and emissions was calculated. Subsonic aircraft were flown along great circle routes between cities. For the HSCT, routing between waypoints to avoid supersonic flight over land was used for many city-pairs. The HSCT was flown along great circle routes between these waypoints. For all flights, zero prevailing winds were assumed.

Flight schedules of

To calculate the global inventory of aircraft emissions, a computer model was developed which basically combines scheduling data (departures, aircraft type) with aircraft performance and emissions data. The Global Atmospheric Emissions Code (GAEC) computer model was used to calculate fuel burned and emissions from files of airplane performance and engine emissions data. The aircraft performance file contains detailed performance input data for a wide range of operating conditions. Each engine emission input file contains emission indices tabulated as a function of fuel flow rate. The GAEC model is described in more detail in Appendix G.

2 5

For each route flown by the airplane/engine type, the takeoff gross weight required was calculated as a function of the city-pair route distance. flight segments:

The fuel burned was calculated for the following

e

* e

e

e

e

e

e

e

Taxi-ou t Takeoff Climbout Subsonic Climb Subsonic Cruise Supersonic Climbou t Supersonic Cruise Supersonic Descent Descent Approach and Land Taxi-in

For subsonic aircraft, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) were calculated based on the measured ground level emission indices reported to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAQ) for current aircraft. These measurements are reported at four thrust settings. For detailed calculations of a single mission, the normal process is to use the engine emission data, the. engine performance data as provided by engine thermodynamic cycle models, and the airplane performance data. Thermodynamic cycle analyses are too computationally intensive for the calculation of a global inventory of emissions. The Boeing developed simplified approach described earlier was used instead.

For the calculation of a global inventory of emissions, the measured ICAO emissions data were interpolated as a function of fuel flow rate and, corrected for temperature and pressure at altitude (based on U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976). where no hardware and thus no measurements exist, projected engine emissions data were provided by General Electric (GE) and Pratt & Whitney (P&W).

For the HSCT,

Distributions of fuel usage and emissions were done for 1" latitude x 1" longitude x 1 km altitude cells. The altitude corresponds to the geopotential altitudes of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere temperature and pressure profile and is thus pressure-gridded data. For each city-pair, the total route distance was calculated. The fuel

2 6

burn rate and airplane gross weight were then calculated at discrete distances along the route path which corresponded to points where the airplane entered or left a cell (crossed any of the cells boundaries) or points where a transition in flight conditions occurred (climbout/climb, climbkruise, cruise/descent, descent/approach and land, taxi-out/climbout, approach and landhaxi-in). The fuel burn rate would change dramatically at these transition points.

The emissions were calculated for each flight segment between the above described discrete points using the fuel burn rate within the segment. The total fuel burned in the segment was calculated as the difference in airplane gross weight at the segment end-points. The emissions were then assigned to a cell based on the coordinates of the endpoints.

2 1

3.5 Engineering C heck s

The GAEC code was written to be a shortcut for the standard, computationally intensive Boeing emissions analysis process, and, as such, simplifying assumptions were made. In order to validate the GAEC code, a set of test cases were run using both GAEG and the standard Boeing Mission Analysis Program (BMAP-EMIT) process. Four routes for one aircraft/engine configuration were analyzed by both methods using the operating conditions assumed for the global emissions calculations (no winds, Standard Atmospheric conditions, 70% full passenger payload, 200 lb per passenger, etc.). Table 3-1 shows the total fuel burned and emissions generated for each portion of the flight segment as calculated by both codes.

In all of the test cases, the difference between total fuel or total emissions was less than 2% when the GAEC solution was compared to the BMAP-EMIT solution. (The differences are the percentages relative to the BMAP-EMIT solutions). The most obvious discrepancy in the data is seen in the GAEC approach data where the HC and CO emissions were overestimated by 25% and NO, was overestimated by 13%. This is most likely due to the approach performance averaging approach-land segment, which results in higher overall emissions. However, only a small fraction of the fuel burned or emissions occur during approach. primary interest is in accounting for the cruise emissions, the agreement was considered to be quite good, particularly for longer range missions.

For calculations of global emissions where the

2 8

Table 3-1. Comparison of the Global Atmospheric Emission Code (GAEC) Results with Detailed Engineering Model Calculations (BMAPEMIT) For Four Aircraft Missions Using One Subsonic AircraftEngine Type

TPA-PBI taxi-out takeoff climb cruise descent approach taxi-in total

LAX-DFW taxi-out takeoff climb cruise descent approach taxi-in total

JFK-OSL taxi-out takeoff climb cruise descent approach taxi-in total

SIN-VIE taxi-out takeoff climb cruise descent approach taxi-in

151 432 768 1912 1916 388 400 239 61 15

1071 432 823 5138 16060 691 400 239

23704

31 98 432 976 5645 60965 688 400 239

69346

5242 432 1087 6289

111151 693 400 239

nmi 18.1 0.4 0.9 4.9 30.2 7.1 10.1 71.7

nmi 18.1 0.4 3.3 41.2 63.9 7.1 10.0 144.2

nrni 18.1 0.4 3.3

129.4 63.9 7.1 9.9

232.0

nmi 18.1 0.4 3.5

198.0 64.2 7.1 9.9

1.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.5 0.6 0.8 6.0

1.5 0.0 0.4 3.5 5.3 0.6 0.8 12.2

1.5 0.0 0.4 11.6 5.3 0.6 0.8 20.3

1.5 0.1 0.4 18.5 5.4 0.6 0.8

1.5 17.9 45.0 22.7 1.3 2.7 0.9 92.2

1.5 19.0 105.4 177.3 2.0 2.7 0.9

308.9

1.5 22.9 120.4 71 7.6 2.0 2.7 0.9

868.2

1.5 25.8 138.0 1386.5

2.0 2.7 0.9

432 766 1815 2093 397 400 240 61 42

432 821 4967 161 48 720 400 240

23728

432 975 5682 60654 71 5 400 240

69099

432 1087 6596

1 10445 71 8 400 240

BMAP-EMIT GAEC differences ROUTE fuel co Hc NOx fuel CO HC NOx fuel CO HC NOx

( W (W (Ib) (Ib) (Ib) (Ib) (Ib) (Ib) YO Y O Yo

total 120290 301.4

18.2 0.3 0.9 5.1 30.5 5.3 10.1 70.4

18.1 0.4 3.2 42.1 66.0 5.3 10.0 145.1

18.2 0.4 3.5

129.6 65.4 5.2 10.0 232.4

18.1 0.5 3.9

198.2 65.7 5.3 10.0

1.5 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.5 0.4 0.8 5.9

1.5 0.1 0.4 3.6 5.5 0.4 0.8 12.3

1.5 0.1 0.4 11.6 5.5 0.4 0.8 20.3

1.5 0.1 0.5 18.6 5.5 0.4 0.8

1.6 17.9 42.4 24.1 1.3 2.3 0.9 90.4

1.6 19.3 100.9 177.9 2.2 2.3 0.9

305.1

1.6 23.1 118.9 706.7 2.2 2.3 0.9

855.7

1.6 26.0 141.4 1365.3 '2.2 2.3 0.9

0.0 -0.4 0.3 22.1 5.1 -7.2 -9.3 -4.7 -2.4 -0.8 0.0 25.6 -0.4 0.5 -0.5 1.8

0.0 0.0 0.2 15.9 3.3 3.3 -0.6 -2.2 -4.1 -3.3 0.0 26.1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.6

0.0 -0.6 0.1 0.0 -0.7 -5.7 0.5 -0.2 -4.0 -2.4 0.0 26.8 -0.4 -0.8 0.4 -0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.4 -4.9 -10.8 0.6 -0.1 -3.6 -2.3 0.0 25.5 -0.4 -1.0

27.3 1538.5 119918 301.8 27.3 1539.7

0.0 -8.0 -2.5 0.2 -3.6 5.8 -9.2 -6.0 -0.8 5.3 24.9 13.2 0.7 -2.3 1.9 2.0

0.0 -6.7 -2.3 -1.6 2.5 4.3 -1.7 -0.3 -3.0 -9.1 24.6 12.8 1.2 -3.4 -0.8 1.3

0.0 -6.7 -20.5 -0.9 -5.0 1.3 0.0 1.5 -2.6 -8.6 24.6 12.5 -1.2 -3.4 0.0 1.4

0.0 -8.0 10.6 -0.8 -9.1 -2.5 -0.1 1.5 -2.1 -10.0 24.6 12.8 -1.2 -2.3

0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

2 9

3.6 Scenario C h e c k s

A three-dimensional evaluation for the scheduled flights of every aircraft/engine configuration of passenger jets and turboprops included in the dataset was calculated. These were then summed to produce the various scenarios. Each three-dimensional aircraft database

1.

2 .

3 .

4.

was checked out using the following procedure:

Fuel burned for the scenario was totaled over latitude, longitude, and altitude and then compared with reported global jet fuel consumption. Global average emission indices were calculated for NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons and compared with emission indices reported to ICAO to ensure the gridded emissions were reasonable. The emissions were totaled over latitude and longitude, and then emission indices as a function of altitude were calculated. This is a test of the emission technology and the level of detail that went into the emission scenario calculation. Emission indices vary with power settings and thus vary at different stages of the flight. In general, NOx emission indices should be greater during climbout than at cruise because a higher power setting is needed. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission indices will be largest at the lowest level because of low power settings during taxi operations (however, this is sensitive to the amount of time assumed during airport operations relative to takeoff). The geographical distribution was checked using visual aids to make sure that it made sense for the scenario involved (Soviet Union traffic in the Soviet Union, HSCT high altitude flights only over water, etc.). Fuel burn and emissions as a function of latitude and longitude (superimposed on a map of the world) at each altitude level or summed into altitude bands were checked to ensure that routes were consistent with the type of aircraft shown and that airport locations were appropriate for each group of airplanes used in the scenario.

30

3.7 Water Vapor Emissions

Water vapor emissions from jet aircraft are proportional to the fuel used by the aircraft and to the hydrogen content of the fuel. Based on Boeing analyses (Reference 11) of jet fuel, the average hydrogen content is 13.84%. Thus the emission index for water vapor is given by the following expression:

EI(H20) = (8936.7) x (hydrogen fraction in fuel) - 1.975 x EI(HC)

if measured at the exit plane of the engine. assumption that hydrocarbons emitted by an HSCT will be oxidized to water vapor and carbon dioxide, the effective EI(H20) is 1237.

Making the reasonable

(Note that the emission index for hydrocarbons is given as grams of CH4 per kg of fuel.)

3.8 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from jet aircraft are proportional to the fuel use and to the carbon content of the fuel. Based on Boeing analyses (Reference 11) of jet fuel, the average hydrogen content is 13.84%. Thus the emission index for C02 is given by the following expression:

EI(C02) = (3664) x (carbon fraction in fuel)-1.571 x EI(C0)-2.744 x EI(HC)

if measured at the exit plane of the engine. reasonable assumption that carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will ultimately be oxidized to carbon dioxide, the effective EI(C02) is 3155.

Again, making the

3.9 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions from aircraft are proportional to \

the fuel use since the sulfur emissions are due to sulfur impurities in the jet fuel. and are expected to vary somewhat between geographical regions due to refinery differences and different regulatory requirements. Similarly, future emissions will depend on projected changes in fuel composition.

The scaling factors depend on the chemical composition

3 1

Analyses of jet fuel samples from airports around the world

Sulfur content in the year 2015 is projected to be yield an average sulfur content of jet A of 0.042% by weight. (Reference 11) 0.02%. (Reference 12)

Assuming that all fuel sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide, the emission index for sulfur dioxide is given by

EI(S02) = (1998) x (sulfur fraction in fuel)

Based on the previous Boeing fuels analysis work (References 11-12), we recommend the emission indices (grams of emissionkilogram fuel) shown in Table 3-2 be used:

Table 3-2. Recommended emission indices in units of grams emission/kilogram fuel for 1990 and 201 5.

Emission index (El) 1990 2015

Carbon Dioxide (C02) 3155 31 55 Water (H20) 1237 1237 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 0.8 0.4

Since the sulfur emissions arise from impurities in jet fuel, an initial estimate can be obtained by multiplying the fuel burn reported in the NASA HSRSS scenarios (1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude x 1 km altitude) times the average sulfur content of jet fuel for 1990 and projected to 2015. For future work, if sulfur emissions appear to be significant, this could then be refined by analyzing fuel sulfur content in different regions.

3 2

4. HSCT Emissions Scenarios

HSCT scenarios for both Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCTs were

The scheduling and developed assuming fleets of 500 active HSCTs, with cruise NOx emission indices of approximately 5 and 15. routing of the HSCT network were described in Section 2.

4 . 1 HSCT Description

The Mach 2.4 HSCT scenarios were calculated using the Boeing preliminary design model 1080-924 with four Pratt & Whitney STJ989 turbine bypass engines with mixed compression translating center body (MCTCB2) inlets and two-dimensional semi-stowable (SS2D) nozzles. The aircraft has a cranked-arrow wing planform (see Figure 4-1) and a mostly composite structure. Overall body length is approximately 314 feet with a wing span of 139 feet. It was designed to carry 309 passengers for a range of 5000 nautical miles.

The Mach 2.0 HSCT scenarios were developed based on the preliminary design model 1080-938 with four P&W STJ1016 turbine bypass engines with MCTCB2 inlets and SS2D nozzles. The characteristics of these aircraft are summarized in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Summary of HSCT aircraft characteristics used in the development of the Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCT emission scen

Model Number Engine

Range (nautical miles)

Passengers Design Payload (lbs)

Max. Takeoff Weight (lbs)

Wing Span (ft) Wing Area (sq. ft.)

ios.

Mach 2.4

1080-924 PW STJ989

5000

3 0 9 64,890

784,608

1 3 9 8180

Mach 2.0

1080-938 PW STJ1016

5000

3 0 9 64,890

802,872

1 4 0 8260

3 3

1

I

\ p- Length = 314 ft

Configuration Description:

Maximum takeoff weight 784,600 pounds Wing Area 8,180 square feet Engine STJ989 Payload 309 passengers, tri-class Range 5,000 nmi - supersonic cruise

Figure 4-1. HSCT Planform

34

Emissions data for NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons were provided by GE/P&W for a generic HSCT combustor with a nominal NO, emission index at supersonic cruise of approximately 5 gm NO, (as N02)/kg fuel. Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emission levels were calculated from these data as a function of power setting and altitude. A similar calculation was done to scale up to a nominal cruise E1 (NO,)=15 scenario. assumed to operate as a conventional combustor at low power settings and as an advanced low-NO, combustor at higher settings. Based on discussions with both engine companies, the EI(N0,) for this case was unchanged at low power settings and increased by a factor of 3 at higher thrust settings.

For this scaling, the combustor was

4.2 HSCT ission Profiles

The basic HSCT mission profile was assumed as follows: 10 minute taxi out, all engine takeoff ground-roll and liftoff, climbout to 1500 feet and accelerate, climb to optimum cruise altitude (subsonic or supersonic, depending on whether over land or water), climbing supersonic cruise at constant Mach, descent to 1500 feet, approach and land, and 5 minute taxi in. The HSCT was assumed to fly according to design performance, with the cruise altitude determined by the weight of the aircraft.

For a given HSCT model, fuel burned and emissions data were calculated for parametric mission cases: various takeoff weights (in increments of 50,000 pounds), two passenger-loading factors (100% and 65%), and with two cruise speeds (Mach 2.4 and These subsonic and supersonic mission profiles of v were used with a regression analysis to develop generalized performance for each The details of this analysis are described in Appendix D.

SCT mission segment as a function of weight.

HSCT flight profiles of fuel burn and emissions were calculated from these performance and emissions data for each HSCT mission. The departure network was described earlier in this report. These profiles with projected HSCT flight frequencies were then used to calculate the three-dimensional database, as described earlier in Section 3.

3 5

4 . 3 Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCT Results

Fleet sizes and fleet fuel utilization for the Mach 2.4 and Mach 2.0 HSCT fleets are given in Table 4-2. In order to carry the same passenger demand, more Mach 2.0 HSCTs were required. resulted in a slightly higher (2.8%) fuel use by the Mach 2.0 fleet

This

relative to that of the Mach 2.4.

Fleet size Total weekly departures Total miledday Total HSCT fleet fuel (million Ibdday)

fleet fuel us(

Mach 2.4

500 15,344

7,45 8,802 4 6 2

These results correspond'to a daily HSCT passenger demand of

assenger demand and assume equal market penetration for both ach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCT fleets, the route statistics are the same

ach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 fleets. Total daily departures were an average route distance of 3408 nautical miles.

386,800 passengers. Since this SCT network was based on

e distances flown, fuel utilization, and NOx emission indices for different flight segments are summarized below in Tables 4-3 to 4-6 for the four cases studied.

3 6

Table 4-3. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.0 HSCT, EI=5 flight segments.

Daily Daily Flight Daily Fuel NOx Segment Mileage (1000 Ibs) (1000 lbs) EI(N0x)

Taxi out Initial Climb 84,336 Supersonic Climb 420,656 Supersonic Cruise 5,703,712 Supersonic Descent 194,285 Supersonic Cruise & Descent 11,892 Subsonic Cruise 721,699 Final Descent 322,224 Taxi in

5,800 34,202 57,143

324,970 1,356 1,102

36,411 11,916 2,240

41 277 463

1,704 9 9

239 83 16

7.00 8.10 8.10 5.24 6.99 8.10 6.57 6.99 6.99

I Total 7,458,804 475,140 2,842

Table 4-4. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.0, EI=15 flight segments.

Daily Daily Mission Daily Fuel NQx Segment Mileage (1000 lbs) (1000 lbs) EI(NQx)

Taxi out 5,800 63 10.83 Initial Climb 84,336 34,202 831 24.31 Supersonic Climb 420,656 57,143 1,389 24.30

Supersonic Descent 194,285 1,356 15 10.83 Supersonic Cruise & Descent 11,892 1,102 27 24.30 Subsonic Cruise 721,699 36,411 718 19.71 Final Descent 322,224 11,916 129 10.83 Taxi in 2,240 24 10.83

Supersonic Cruise 5,703,712 324,970 5,113 15.73

Total 7,458,804 475,140 8,308

3 7

Table 4-5. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.4, EI=5 flight

Daily Daily Mission Daily Fuel NOx S e g m e n t Mileage (1000 lbs) (1000 lbs) EI(N0x)

Taxi out 6,429 42 6.56 Initial Climb 93,003 37,932 328 8.65 Supersonic Climb 579,337 76,152 659 8.65 Supersonic Cruise 5,470,218 282,627 1,531 5.42 Supersonic Descent 257,054 1,669 1 1 6.56 Supersonic Cruise & Descent 22,505 2,100 18 8.65 Subsonic Cruise 71 8,847 39,585 328 8.30 Final Descent 31 7,840 12,663 83 6.56 Taxi in 2,455 16 6.56

Total 7,458,804 461,613 3,017

Table 4-6. Daily mileage, fuel consumption, NOx emissions, and NOx emission index for the Mach 2.4, EI=15 flight

Taxi out Initial Climb 93,003

Supersonic Cruise 5,470,218 Supersonic Descent 257,054 Supersonic Cruise & Descent 22,505 Subsonic Cruise 71 8,847 Final Descent 31 7,840 Taxi in

Total 7,458,804

Supersonic Climb 579,337

6,429 69 10.77 37,932 984 25.95 76,152 1,976 25.95 282,627 4,593 16.25

1,669 18 10.78 2,100 54 25.95 39,585 334 8.44 12,663 136 10.78 2,455 26 10.77

461,613 8,192

3 8

The NO, emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) are shown in Figure 4-2 for the Mach 2.4 and M2.0, nominal EI(NOx)=5 fleets. The peak NOx emissions at Mach 2.4 occur at 19-21 km altitudes with smaller peaks at 10-13 km altitude due to subsonic cruise. The Mach 2.0 HSCT flies at a lower cruise altitude which is evident in the emissions distribution.

0 5 0 100 1 0

NOx Emissions (million kg/year)

Figure 4-2. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.0, EI(NOx)=5) and Mach 2.4, EI(NOx)=5 HSCT fleets. (summed over latitude and longitude).

The calculated fuel burned, emissions, and effective emission indices as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4 HSCTs are tabulated in Tables E l - E4 in Appendix E.

3 9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative Fraction of NOx (%)

Figure 4-3. Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the Mach 2.4 HSCT’fleet.

Figure 4-3 shows the cumulative fraction of NO, emissions plotted as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet with nominal EI(NOx)=5 and EI(NOx)=15. Approximately 53% of the NO, emissions from a Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet will occur above 17 km altitude, with 24 % above 20 km.

4 0

n

x E Y

0 20 4 0 60 80 100

Cumulative Fraction of NOx (%)

Figure 4-4. Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet.

By cornparison with the Mach 2.4 HSCT , the Mach 2.0 fleet emissions occur at lower altitude, with no emissions above 20 km, as shown in Figure 4-4.

41

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o

lative Fraction of

Figure 4-5. Cumulative fraction of fuel burned, NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 fleet.

Figure 4-5 shows the cumulative fraction of fuel burn and emissions plotted as a function of altitude for the Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 HSCT fleet. of the CO and hydrocarbon emissions occur at lower altitude compared to the NOx emissions or the fuel burned.

This figure illustrates that a significantly larger fraction

The three-dimensional character of the data set is illustrated in Figure 4-6 which shows NO, emissions for the Mach 2.4 HSCT (nominal EI(NO,)=5) case. Emissions at 18-21 km due to supersonic cruise are concentrated in the northern hemisphere, particularly between 40" and 50" N latitude. Flights above 13 km occur only over water.

NOx Hc 03 Fuel

2

HSCT Mach 2.4 (EI=5) 30

25

20 Y W

9 15

: 10 +

5

0 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Latitude

0.01 40.01 80.01 120.01 160.01 200.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+29)

HSCT Mach 2.4 (EI=5) (summed over 13-22 km) 90

60

30

.= 0 li

-30

-60

-90

a> 3 1

-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude

0.01 20.01 40.01 60.01 80.01 100.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+28)

Figure 4-6. NOx emissions for a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude) (bottom panel), considering only the HSCT emissions.

43

HSCT emissions are calculated to occur mostly at northern mid- latitudes . This is shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. Only 3% of the total fuel burned occurs north of 60" N latitude. No flights occur south of 40" S latitude. Approximately 32% of the fuel burned occurs between 30" S and 30" N latitude.

-90 : I 1 I I

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fuel Burned (billion kg/yr)

Figure 4-7. Fuel burned as a function of latitude for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet only (summed over altitude and longitude).

4 4

Figure

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 ." -80 -90 0.0

4-8.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o

Cumulative Fraction of Fuel Burned

Cumulative fraction of fuel burned as a function of latitude for the Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet only (summed over altitude and longitude).

4 5

0 5 1 0 1 5

-9. Emission indices for NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide as a' function of altitude for the Mach 2.4, EI(NOx)=5 fleet only.

Emission indices for NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons vary as a function of altitude as shown in Figure 4-9. highest during times of high thrust requirements @e., climbout and supersonic climb), while CO and hydrocarbons are much lower at those times. During periods of low power, the CO and hydrocarbons are proportionally higher.

Nitrogen oxide levels are

4 6

5. Year 199 Scheduled Aircraft Emission Scenarios

Fuel burn and emissions (NO,, CO, hydrocarbons) were calculated for scheduled 1990 turboprop, cargo, and airliner traffic. Flight frequencies and equipment types were taken from the May 1990 Official Airline Guide (OAG) and used as representative of the annual average. Aircraft performance data and emission characteristics were assembled for 57 subsonic jet aircraft/engine configurations, for the supersonic Concorde, and for three sizes of turboprop aircraft.

Airplanes known to have similar performance characteristics and to operate similarly were combined under single airplane models.

airplanes estimated to have similar operating and performance characteristics. The results are described below.

Airplanes for which Boeing does not have performance data ussian aircraft) were analyzed using performance data from

iner and Cargo Scenar io

The aircraft included in the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo scenario calculation are shown in Table 5-1. per day were considered, with .22,596,338 miles flown per day. included 14,785 city pairs between 1,639 cities.

A total of 37,069 flights This

Table 5-2 summarizes the global fuel use, emissions and globally averaged emission indices for each of the aircraft/engine combinations included in the compilation of the database. As the table illustrates, the emissions characteristics of the older aircraft (e.g., 707, DC-8) are quite different from those of more modern aircraft (e.g., 757, 767).

A three-dimensional database was calculated for each of the aircraft/engine configurations. These were then summed over all the aircraft types to produce a three-dimensional scenario of scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft. The fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices as a function of altitude for scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft are tabulated in Table E-5 in Appendix E.

4 7

Table 5-1. Departure statistics for 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft.

Maximum Total Total Average Range Daily Daily Route

Distance Distance Departures Distance Aircraft/engine (nm) (nm) (nm)

707 -320-C-JT3D-7 727-IOOJT8D-9 727-200JT8D-9 727-200JT8D-15 737-2OOJT8D-9 737-200-JT8D-15 737-300+400+50O-CFM56 747-100+2OO_JTgD-7A 747-100+20O-CF6-5OE2 747-20O-JTgD-7J 747-200-JTgD-7Q 747 -2oO-JTgD-7R4G2 747-200-RB211 7 4 7 - 3 O 0-CF 6 - 5 OE2 747-3OO-CF6-8OC2 747-300-JTgD-7R4G2 7 4 7 -3 0 0-RB2 11 7 4 7 - 4 0 0-CF6 - 8 OC2 7 47 -400-PW40 5 6 7 47 - 4 0-RB2 11 747SP-JT9D-7 7 47 SP-RB2 11 7 57 -200-PW2 0 00 757-200-RB211 767-2OO+ER+CF6-8OA 767-2OO+ER_JTgD-7R4 767-2OO+ER-PW4000 767-200+ER-CF6-80C2 767-30O+ERVCF6-80C2 767-3OO+ER_JTgD-7R4 767-300+ER-PW4060 7 67 -3 OOER-RBZ 11 A300-60O+ER-CF6-8OC2 A3OO-B2+B4-CF6-5OC2 A310-200+30O-CF6-8OA A320-200+300-CFM56-5-A

5531 2542 2612 2792 2318 2250 2444 5561 6537 6267 6078 6609 6736 6159 6929 6480 6538 7555 7510 7494 6501 6929 4161 3963 5691 5688 6633 6844 6351 4343 6157 6035 4488 3500 4374 3090

122707 85133 474599 2690180 902360 1380118 2956560 709461 720532 105030 593654 55586 481714 34339 34764 139486 63629 59611 179918 94781 138436 2408

397387 299246 389279 331352 9357 78632 136937 31246 102466 8310 72687 695597 455270 157621

144 174 1196 4637 2480 3820 5804 311 315 44 248 25 190 16 11 55 32 31 56 33 50 4

509 407 389 202 4 50 165 52 79 26 78

1070 454 354

853 491 397 580 364 361 509 2279 2287 2403 2391 2215 2535 2187 3280 2555 1995 1917 3213 2889 2747

6 17 781 735 1002 1643 2600 1570 832 600 1292 320 932 650 1003 445

4 8

Table 5-1. (cont) Departure statistics for 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft.

Maximum Total Total Average Range Daily Daily Route

Distance Distance Departures Distance Aircraft/engine (nm) (nm) (nm)

BACJ-11-SPEY-512 BAE146-ALF502 CARAVELLE-1OB-JT8D CONCORDE DASSMR-JT8D-7 DClO-lO-CF6-6D DCIO-3O-CF6-5OE2 DC8-63-JR3D DC8-71-CFM56-BI DCg-I0+20+3O_JT8D DC9-40+5O_JT8D FOKKER-100-TAY-650 FOKKER-28-SPEY-555 IL-62JT3D-7 IL-86-RB211 L10 11-RB2 11 MD-82JT8D-217 MD-87JT8D-217 TRIDENTJT8D-7 TU134JT8D-7 TUIS4-JT8D-15 YAK-40+42-JT8D-7

1513 1243 2054

2275 3459 6064 4834 4776 1454 1500 1990 1500 5531 2969 5785 2157 2515 2500 1454 2792 2500

102072 186770 16248 21024 15688 175135 1256978 132540 203639 1393088 235049 67887 316985 138373 83116 675739 1647721 73086 13577 117541 436081 97609

302 7 63 62 7 62 143 692 107 202 4078 636 229 1229 66 73 489 3256 114 21 267 505 251

338 245 264 3066 254 1225 1815 1240 1007 342 370 297 258 2087 1143 1381 506 641 635 440 864 389

4 9

Table 5-2. Globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for each aircraft included in the 1990 scheduled airline and cargo database.

Globally Summed Emission Indices Airaaftlengine Fuel Nox HC CO EI(N0x) EIWC) EI(C0)

727- 100-JTSD-9 727-200-JTSD- 15 727-2OOJ”SD-9 737-200-JTSD- 15 737-200-JTSD-9 737-3oo+4o(k500-CFM56 747- 100+200-CF6-5OE2 747- 100+200-JIYD-7A 747-200-JIYD-7 J 747-200-JIYD-7Q 747-2OO-JT9D-7R4G2 747-200-RB211 747-300-CF6-5OE2 747-300-CF6-8OC2 747-300-JT9D-7R462 747-3W-RB2 11 747-4OO-CF6-8OC2 747-400-PW4056 7471100-RB2 11

747SPRB211 747SPJDD-7

757-200~PW2000 757-200-RB211 767-20QI-ER-CF6-80A 767-200+ER-CF6-8OC2 767-200+ER-JDD-7R4 767-24OtER-PW4000 767-300+ER-CF6-8OC2 767-300+ER-JDD-7R4 767-3(30+ER_PW4060 767-300ER-RB211 A300-6001-ER-CF6-8OC2 A300-B2+B4-CF6-50C2 A3 10-2001-300-CF6-80A A320-2001-300-CFM56-5-Al 3.84E+08 5.34E+06 2.50E+05 2.15E+06 BACl llSPEY-512 2.60E+08 2.62E+06 2.36E+05 1.84E+06 BAE146-ALF502 5.49E+08 5.09E+06 4.95E+06 1.33E+07

CONCORDE 1.47E+08 2.23E+06 1.20E+06 9.07E+06 CARAVELLE- 1OB-JT8D 5.06E+07 4.21E+05 5.60E+04 2.66E+05

5.64 7.98 9.75 9.76 9.25 8.67

10.63 15.34 14.70 14.98 11.58 11.86 19.62 15.67 11.16 12.56 20.55 11.15 12.99 14.38 12.99 19.26 13.36 1 1.89 13.27 10.00 13.08 11.83 11.38 16.25 12.86 19.25 11.65 17.77 13.34 13.91 10.07 9.27 8.31

15.15

33.70 2.08 0.66 0.9 1 0.80 1.12 0.43 1.01 1.75 1.82 1.31 0.40 0.47 1.03 0.90 0.38 0.58 1.21 0.22 2.69 2.33 2.19 0.50 1.89 1.13 1.74 0.33 0.30 2.35 0.42 0.44 2.75 2.00 1.22 1.06 0.65 0.9 1 9.02 1.11 8.14

36.85 7.39 3.71 4.39 4.86 5.26 8.34 5.62 3.47 3.46 3.73 2.73 1.74 5.44 4.04 2.50 2.11 5.27 2.88 2.61 4.54 7.55 4.89 6.62 5.37 7.25 2.35 3.84 9.24 3 .oo 5.15 9.54 7.62 6.54 5.00 5.60 7.07

24.18 5.26

6 1.53

5 0

Table 5-2.(cont) Globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for each aircraft included in the 1990 scheduled airline and cargo database.

Globally Summed Emission Indices Airdengine Fuel NOx HC CO EI(N0x) EI(HC) EI(C0)

&dY& &dye& &dYW &&ear)

Globally Summed Emission Indices Airdengine Fuel NOx HC CO EI(N0x) EI(HC) EI(C0)

&dY& &dye& &dYW &&ear)

DASSMR-JT8D-7 DC 10- 10-CF6-6D DC 10-30-CF6-5OE2 DC8-63-JT3D DC8-71-CFM56-B 1 DC9- 10+20+30_JT8D DC9-40+50-JT8D FOKKER- 100-TAY-650 FOKKER-28-S PEY -5 55 IL-62-JT3D-7 IL-86-RB211 LlOll-RB211 MD-82-JT8D-2 17 MD-87-JT8D-2 17 TRIDENT-JT8D-7 TU134-JT8D-7 TU154-JT8D-15 Y AK4042-JT8D-7

3.63E+05 1.88E+07 9.78E+07 3.82E+06 8.61E+06 2.99E+07 6.94E+06 1.19E+06 7.30E+06 3.14E+06 9.54E+06 6.22E+07 5.5 5E+07 1.9 1E+06 3.58E+05 2.23 E+06 1.48E+07 3.1 1E+06

4.08E+05 6.1 1E+05 6.22E+06 1.03E+07 2.35E+05 5.46E+06 7.16E+05 4.49E+05 5.37E+05 9.5 1E+06 9.07E+05 2.24E+06 7.28E+06 3.25E+05 2.89E+05 1.40E+06 9.79E+05 2.76E+06

7.97 19.36 14.44 6.07

10.26 8.29 9.93 7.83 9.48 5.55

18.05 17.90 12.10 10.90 7.99 7.79 9.45 8.60

8.94 0.63 0.92

16.3 1 0.28 1.51 1.02 2.96 0.70

16.82 1.72 0.65 1.59 1.86 6.45 4.9 1 0.62 7.63

19.47 3.74 6.97

17.96 4.82 7.48 5.71

29.13 8.90

22.62 5.74 2.70 4.99 5.66

13.01 14.63 3.35

14.60

Total 9.08E+10 1.14E+09 1.37E+08 5.17E+08 12.56 1.50 5.69

( ~ . o o E + o ~ = 1.00 x 109)

The NOx emission characteristics shown here for the Concorde differ somewhat from those previously published in Reference 4. Subsequent to the preparation of that report, an error in the NOx emission indices used for Concorde was discovered and corrected. The values shown in Table 5-2 reflect the corrected numbers. Since the number of flights by the Concorde are so few (see Table 5-1), this correction has little effect on the three dimensional emission inventory. NASA Langley was not modified.

Thus, the data file available to atmospheric modelers at

0 5 10 1 5 20

Emission Index ( rams emissions/kg fuel)

Figure 5-1. Emission indices for NOx, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons .as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo scenario.

The emission indices vary significantly as a function of altitude as shown in Figure 5-1. Nitrogen oxide emission indices are higher during takeoff and climb and drop during cruise. Emission indices above 13 km are due to the Concorde and contribute relatively little to the global emissions because of the small number of flights by the Concorde (7 flightdday). tabulation of global emission indices as a function of altitude)

(See Table E-5 in Appendix E for a

5 2

0 100 200 300 400

NOx Emissions (million kg/year)

Figure 5-2. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet (summed over latitude and longitude).

As shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, most (60-65%) of the fuel burned and NO, emissions occur between 9 and 12 km altitude. As shown in Figure 5-3, approximately 60-70% of the CO and hydrocarbons emissions are produced on takeoff and climb out, and thus occur below 9 km.

5 3

20

1 I

10

0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o

Cumulative Fraction

- Figure 5-3. Cumulative fraction of fuel burnec NOx, hyciocarbons, and carbon monoxide as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet.

5 4

60

30

0

-30

-60

-90

30 6oi 0

Figure 5-4.

1 2 3 4 5

Fuel Burned (Billion kg/year)

Fuel burned as a function of latitude (summed over altitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet.

Most scheduled commercial air traffic occurs in the Northern hemisphere. Figure 5-4 shows the distribution of fuel burned from scheduled jet passenger and cargo traffic as a function of latitude. shown in Figure 5-5, approximately 70% of the fuel burn from scheduled jet passenger and cargo aircraft occurs north of 30" North latitude, with the majority between 30" and 60" North.

As

5 5

Cumulative Fraction Fuel Burned

Figure 5-5. Cumulative fraction of fuel burned as a function of latitude (summed over altitude and longitude) for the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo fleet.

5 6

5.2 1990 Scheduled Turboprop Scenario

Three twin-engine turboprops were selected to represent small, medium, and large categories of turboprops flying commercially in 1990. The three size categories corresponding to approximately 19, 36, and 50 seat aircraft. Turboprop flights for 9,356 city pairs between 2,707 cities were included in the analysis. The results are tabulated in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Since turboprop fuel burn was found to be a small fraction (1.1%) of the reported global jet fuel consumption, it will not be discussed in detail here. emissions, and emission indices are tabulated as a function of altitude in Table E-6 of Appendix E.

The fuel burned,

Table 5-3. Departure statistics for 1990 scheduled turboprops.

Total Total A v e r a g e Daily Daily Route

Distance Departures Distance Aircraft ( n m ) ( n m )

Small turboprops 980300 7399 1 3 2 Medium turboprops 714576 4784 1 4 9 Large Turboprops 989875 6343 1 5 6

Total 2,684,75 1 18,526

Table 5-4. Globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for the 1990 scheduled turboprops.

Size Fuel NOx HC co E1 E1 E1 &&year) (kg/year) org/year) (kg/year) NOx HC CO

Large turboprops 7.98E+08 9.65E+06 O.OOE+OO 3.73E+06 12.10 0.00 4.68 Medium turboprops 5.46E+08 5.96E+06 8.67E+05 3.09E+06 10.92 1.59 5.65 Small turboprops 6.42E+08 4.91E+06 2.44E+05 2.96E+06 7.65 0.38 4.60

Total 1.99E009 2.05E+07 1.1 1E+06 9.77E+06 10.34 0.56 4.92

5 7

Because turboprop aircraft fly at lower altitudes, their emissions are injected lower in the atmosphere. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled turboprop aircraft fleet are shown in Figure 5-6.

0 1 2 3 4 5

NOx Emissions (million kg/year)

Figure 5-6. NOx emissions as a function of altitude for the 1990 scheduled turboprop aircraft fleet (summed over latitude and longitude).

5 8

The 1990 turboprop aircraft fleet flew mostly in the Northern Hemisphere at latitudes between 30" and 60" North. Figure 5-7, where fuel burned is plotted as a function of latitude.

This is shown in

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

urned (Billion kg/year)

Figure 5-7. Fuel burned as a function of latitude for the 1990 scheduled turboprop aircraft fleet (summed over altitude and longitude).

5 9

5 . 3 Validation Tests

In 1990, the U.S. airlines reported to the government on DOT- Form 41 their total jet fuel usage, number of departures, and average route distance flown for specific aircraft. Using the GAEC code, Boeing calculated the scheduled traffic for each of these airlines for selected aircraft reported (Boeing 727-200 and 747). The results are summarized in Table 5-5. The calculated total fuel burn for all the airlines taken together appears to be about 9% lower than reported. The model uses about 6% more departures than reported as the annual average by the airlines. The fuel/trip is calculated to be about 14-17% lower than reported, since it undercounts the fuel usage and overcounts the departures.

In general, the agreement appears to be quite good and the differences arise both from simplified assumptions about the aircraft operation and the assumption that one week of departure data could be used to represent the annual average. did not consider the effects on fuel consumption of airport congestion, diversion due to weather, auxiliary power unit utilization, or air traffic control. It assumed that aircraft were flown according to engineering design handbook rules with only the necessary amount of fuel plus reserves; in reality however, aircraft do not refuel at every landing and may carry more extra fuel than required by the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).

The modeling calculation

6 0

0 3

z U

* x E 1 D

W Q

a .c)

8 2

In

€33 a

6 1

5 . 4 1990 Generic Fleet Analysis

The engineering data files used in the calculation of the 1990 scheduled airliner and cargo scenario contain detailed information which is considered proprietary by the Boeing Company. In order to provide non-proprietary data that could be used by NASA for their own tests, a 1990 generic database was constructed based on the performance curves of existing aircraft. The classification of airplanes and the performance characteristics of these generic airplanes were determined using fleet data from the Boeing marketing group and performance data from the predominant airplanes within the fleet classes. Eight generic classes of airplanes were identified. These classifications of 1990 fleet airplanes within the generic fleet are shown in Table 5-6.

6 2

Table 5-6. Aircraft types included in the construction of the 1990 I' generic 'I database .

Generic Class Real Aircraft

1990.SST Concorde

PO80 727-100-JT8D-9 DC9- 10+20+30_JT8D BACll1-SPEY-512 FOKKER- 100-TAY-650 BAE146-ALF502 FOKKER-28-SPEY -555 CARAVELLE- 10B-JT8D TU 134-JT8D-7

P120 727-200-JT8D-9 DC9-40+50-JT8D 737-200-JT8D-9 MD-87-JT8D-2 17 737-2OO-JT8D- 15 TRIDENT-JT8D-7 737-300+400+500-CFM56 Y AK-40+42-JT8D-7 DASSMR-JT8D-7

P180A 707-320B-C-JT3D-7 MD-82-JT8D-217 727-200-JT8D- 15 TU154-JT8D-15 IL-62-JT3D-7

P180B 757-200-PW2000 DC8-63-JT3D 757-200-RB211 DC8-7 1-CFM56-B 1 A320-200+300-CFM56-5-A 1

P250 747SP-JT9D-7 767-300+ER-PW4060 747SP-RB211 767-300ER-RB2 11 767-200+ER-CF6-80A A300-600+ER-CF6-80C2 767-200+ER-JT9D-7R4 A300-B2+B4-CF6-50C2 767-200+ER-PW4000 DC 10- 10-CF6-6D 7 67 -200+ER_CF6- 80C2 DC 10-30-CF6-50E2 767-300+ER-CF6-80C2 LlOl1-RB211 767-300+ER-JT9D-7R4 A3 10-200+300-CF6-80A

P350 747- 100+200-JT9D-7A 747-200-JT9D-7R4G2 747- 100+2OO_CF6- 50E2 747-200-RB211 747-200-JT9D-7J IL-86-RB211 747 -200-JT9D-7 Q

P500 747-30OCF6-50E2 747-400-CF6-80C2 747-3OO-CF6-8OC2 747-400-PW4056 747-300-JT9D-7R4G2 747-400-RB2 11 747-300-RB211

6 3

The base performance data for the predominant airplane in each class were selected to represent the performance data of the generic class. The predominant airplane was defined as the airplane that had the greatest global fuel burn relative to all airplanes within that particular class during the year 1990. These base performance data were then adjusted using a weighting factor accounting for global and local performance characteristics of the airplanes within the generic classes. The local performance factors were determined by flying the aircraft of a given type on a mission typical of those flown by that aircraft class. Only the major contributors to total fuel burn within each class were included in the calculation of the weighting factors. The performance weighting factors were calculated as follows:

n Li x G i

i= 1 factor =

n G . Lc 1

i= 1

where Li = local fuel, NOx, HC, or CQ values of each airplane within the

generic class. Gi = the global fuel, NOx, HC, or CO values of each airplane within the

generic class. LC = the local fuel, NOx, HC, or CQ value of the base airplane

representing the generic class.

Separate factors were calculated for fuel burned, NOx, hydrocarbon, and carbon monoxide emissions. Emissions were calculated for the complete generic 1990 fleet by "flying" each generic airplane on the OAG routes of all airplanes within the respective generic class using the generic airplane performance data and weighting factors.

The flight statistics for the different classes of aircraft are summarized in Table 5-7.

6 4

Table 5-7. Departure statistics for the 1990 generic aircraft fleet. Total Total Average Daily Daily Route

Distance Departures Distance Aircraft (nm) (nm)

~ 0 8 0 (70-109 passengers) ~ 1 2 0 (110-139 passengers) P180A (140-199 passengers) P180B (140-199 passengers) P250 (200-299 passengers) ~ 3 5 0 (300-399 passengers) P500 f400+ passengers) 1990.SST

2285725 6149028 5035063 1190433 4559831 2705302 606528 21024

7103 14385 8608 1578 3946 1187 233

7

322 427 585 754

1156 2279 2606 3066

Table 5-8. Fuel burned, emissions (NOx, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide), and emission indices for the different generic aircraft types, summed over altitude, latitude, and longitude.

Aircraft Fuel NOx HC CO EI(N0X) EI(HC) EI(C0)

1990.SST PO80 P120 P180A P180B P2 50 P350 P500

&&ear) 1.47E+08 5.91 E+09 1.43E+10 1.77E+10 3.24E+09 2.46E+10 2.07E+10 4.49E+09

&g/year) 1.20E+06 1.81 E+07 7.37 E +O 6 1.77E+07 4.65E+06 1.79E+07 2.91 E+07 7.83E+06

(kg/y ear) 9.07 E+06 1.39E+08 8.45 E+07 6.45E+07 1.69E+07 1.06E+08 9.75E+07 1.54E+07

15.15 8.04

10.27 9.28

13.07 15.03 15.43 14.78

8.14 3.07 0.52 1 .oo 1.44 0.73 1.41 1.74

61.53 23.53

5.91 3.64 5.22 4.31 4.72 3.44

Total 9.1 1 E+10 1.16E+09 1.04E+08 5.33E+08 12.72 1.14 5.85

The fuel burned and emissions for the different generic classes are given in Table 5-8. entire fleet of aircraft with only eight generic types is less accurate than using the actual aircraft types in service. A comparison of the differences between the calculated fuel burned and emissions calculated using the database of 58 jet airliners and the eight 1990

As might be expected, representing the

able 5-9. For this calculation, the results ion using 58 jet aircraft types were s u m e d

ce in the comparison with the

6 5

As Table 5-9 shows, the generic description does a good job of accounting for global fuel burned, but there are errors of 10-15% for some aircraft types. Similarly globally calculated NO, emissions appear to be accounted for to within about 10%. Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions are much more poorly accounted for in the generic calculations.

Table 5-9. Comparison of the globally summed fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for the 1990 generic database relative to that calculated using actual 1990 nircr af t .

Aircraft Fuel NOx HC CO EI(N0X) EI(HC) EI(C0)

1990.SST PO80 P120 P180A P180B P250 P350 P500

0.00% 0.52%

1 1.85%

15.01% -13.58%

1.28% 0.02%

-0.66%

0.00% 6.65% 7.86% 7.31% 0.71%

-11.57% -1.33% -7.06%

0.00% -32.84% 50.61% 58.44% 64.02% 18.93%

- 14.42% -103.53%

0.00% -132.64%

21.31% 34.85% 40.84% 10.73%

-21.19% -10.49%

0.00% 6.17%

-4.53% 7.91%

-16.83% 1.78%

-2.64% -7.08%

0.00% -33.53% 43.98% 58.71% 57.67% 28.62%

- 15.90% -103.57%

0.00% - 133.85%

10.73% 35.27% 30.40% 2 1.40%

-22.77 % -10.52%

Total -0.29% -1.55% 23.95% -3.10% -1.26% 24.17% -2.80%

The generic description involves grouping aircraft of similar size and range together as a class. This means that both old and new technology aircraft are grouped together and treated as one. Improvements in combustor efficiency have resulted in significant changes in the CO and HC emissions of aircraft engines. Thus, the generic categories do not do a very good job of accounting for these emissions. Since the new and old technology aircraft are not uniformly distributed between countries, there will be errors introduced in the geographical distribution of the emissions when generic categories are used.

In general, while the 1990 generic aircraft may be useful for certain parametric studies, there are significant errors introduced by trying to represent the diverse global aircraft fleet by just a few generic aircraft types; and this should be borne in mind by users.

6 6

6 . Year 2015 Subsonic Aircraft Scenarios

For year 2015, passenger demand was projected by averaging regional growth rates predicted by the Boeing and McDonnell Douglas market research groups as described in Section 2. growth rates and revenue passenger miles by region were summarized in Table 2-2. 1991 was used as a base year for forecasting purposes be the same in 2015 as in 1991 and that airlines will operate with the same average load factors. In order to calculate the projected emission inventories due to subsonic aircraft, it is necessary to project the distribution between different sizes of aircraft and future performance and emission characteristics. Emission scenarios were calculated for cases with and without a 500 HSCT fleet in order to provide a reference case for atmospheric assessment calculations.

The projected

It was assumed that the airline networks will

6.1 Distribution between Aircraft Types

In order to balance airplane size growth and airplane departures (flight frequency) growth, the initial calculations of 201 5 scheduled available seats used the common growth rates, while the 2015 scheduled departures used 50% of the common growth rate (Le., the airplanes are projected to get bigger on average). were grouped into ten generic passenger sizes (see Table 6-1).

Future aircraft

Tab 1 e 6 - 1. Classes of "Generic" Subsonic Passenger Aircraft Used in the 2015 Scenario Construction

Class Seating

Capacity Average

Seats TBP (turboprop) 0 - 49 30

PO60 50- 69 60 PO80 70 - 109 85 P120 110 - 139 120 P180 140- 199 170 P250 200 - 299 250 P350 300 - 399 350 P500 400 - 599 500 P700 600 - 799 700 P900 > 800 900

6 7

Estimation of the airplane size and frequency requirements by city-pair market for the year 2015 requires that two elements be forecast:

* Total number of seats required by each city-pair market. * Total number of departures required by each city-pair

market.

The target minimum number of departures for city pairs in each region (as shown in Table 6-2) was used, based on a reasonable level of service and at least two competitors in each market.

Table 6-2. Target Departure Levels

Target Weekly Market Frequencies

Domestic Markets U.S. Domestic Europe Domestic & Intra Europe Japan Domestic

AsidOceania Indian Subcontinent Latin America

North America-Asia North America-Europe Europe- Asia

Intra Regional

Long Range

AU other

112

98

56

14

The calculation of the actual level of departures for each city pair and of the size of the airplanes assigned to the city pair are based on the forecast values of seats and departures from the initial calculation outlined above, the departure target levels of Table 6-2, and the sizes of the airplanes which can be assigned to the city pair. Figure 6-1 outlines the process used in assigning airplanes and calculating city pair departures:

6 8

(1) The initial estimate of average airplane size is calculated from the forecast of total seats required for the city pair and departures in year 2015.

average size in the base year of 1991. size in 2015 > 1991 average size, then:

(2) The initial average size estimate is compared to the If initial average

Path A

( 3 ) The initial calculated value of with the target departure level. If initial calculated departures > target level, then:

departures is compared

(6) "Generic" airplanes are assigned to the city pair such that the average size of greater than the initial average size.

assigned "generic" airplane size.

the airplane assigned is

(7) City pair departures are recalculated based on the

(2) The initial average size estimate is compared to the average size in the base year of 1991. size in 2015 < 1991 average size, then:

If initial average

Path B

(4) Year 2015 average airplane size is set equal to year 1991 average airplane size, and:

(6) "Gmeric" airplanes are assigned to the city pair such that the average size of greater than the initial average size.

assigned "generic" airplane size.

the airplane assigned is

(7) City pair departures are recalculated based on the

9

I

r

I

1 _.

Figure 6-1. Flow chart of Seats and Departures Me thodology

I

6

Forecast

7 0

Figure 6-2 compares the available seat mile - (ASM) distribution by generic size for the passenger airplane in the September 1991 schedule data and the NASA Emission Study Forecast for the year 2015 (based on the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas "common" growth rates, described in section 2). The latter forecast is shown with and without the presence of a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 300-passenger HSCTs. 12% of the year 2015 available seat miles.

A target HSCT fleet of 500 airplanes could consume about

"NASA Forecast (BCAGIMDC Combined)

1991 201 5 201 5 Actual (no HSCT) (w HSCT)

100

80

r" a v)

Q 0 I- 0 40

S Q)

60 I

+-r

* CI

2 Q) 20 e

0

§eating Capacity:

HSCT >799 600-799 400-599 300-399 200-299 140-199 <140

Figure 6-2. Passenger available seat mile distribution between different size aircraft for September 1991 and the NASA study forecast for 2015 (with and without an HSCT fleet).

7 1

6.2 Cargo Fleet Projection

The process for estimating the frequencies and aircraft size for cargo airplanes was the same as for the passenger airplanes except:

* Tons were used as a measure of capacity. Tons required were assumed to increase at 6.3% per year for all markets. Frequencies were assumed to increase at 4.0% per year for all markets .

The five classes of generic cargo aircraft are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3. Classes of "Generic" Subsonic YR 2015 Cargo Airplane Used in the 2015 Scenario Construction

Class Capacity Average

(Tons) (Tons) COO5 COlO GO40 C080 C160

0 - 5 5 - 10 20 - 40 40 - 80 > 80

3.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 120.0

Figure 6-3 shows the resulting Available Ton Mile (ATM) distribution for the September 1991 schedule and the 2015 forecast results. As with the passenger fleet there is a shift to larger capacity airplanes. airplanes result in a majority of the freighter departures being in aircraft of more than 40 ton capacity (DC-10/767 size airplanes).

The growth in cargo demand plus the shift to larger

7 2

September 1991 Schedule

11.1111111111 1-11.

Year 2015 Forecast

Figure 6-3. Cargo aircraft size distributions for 1991 and forecast for 2015.

7 3 ,

6.3 2015 Aircraft Technology

Baseline 1990 airplane performance performance data were used as the basis class of airplane in the 2015 fleet. One 57 subsonic aircrafvengine combinations

data and engine for the analysis of each modern 1990 airplane, of the described in section 3, was

selected to represent each class of projected year 2015 airplane. Since there are no airplanes in the 1990 category for the two largest classes, P700 and P900, the fuel usage for the 1990 P500 category aircraft was scaled by the factors 1.4 and 1.5 relative to the largest known 1990 aircraft, respectively, to account for size. Technology improvement factors were applied to each airplane to account for estimated improvements in fuel burn and emissions for airplanes entering service between 1990 and 2015. Based on a Boeing marketing analysis, a year 2015 fleet would be composed of 50% airplanes built before 2005 and 50% airplanes built after 2005. The technology improvement factors were calculated assuming that the entire fleet would be "state of the art" for the year 2005.

Estimating the fuel flow improvement factor was a two-step process. First, the baseline airplane fuel flow was corrected to 1990 technology and then corrected again to reflect 2005 technology. The 1990 correction is based on the assumption that turbofan engines of ali thrust ratings and equal technology will have approximately equal fuel flow to thrust ratios at maximum power. improvement factor varies between classes, in part, because the age of the baseline aircraft differs from class to class. The fuel flow factor, wff, was calculated for each airplane as follows:

The

wff = fft (airplane) /fft (best standard in 1990)

where fft is the ratio of fuel flow for the particular airplane to the thrust at maximum power. wf, was used to reflect improvements for 2005. flow, wfc, was thus obtained as follows:

An additional 2% reduction in fuel flow, The corrected fuel

wfc = wf(airp1ane) x wff x 0.98.

Engine emissions improvement factors were estimated based on known differences between older technology engines and new modern engines. Basically, the emissions characteristics were expected to improve to 1990 "state-of-the-art". The technology improvement factors used are summarized in Table 6-4.

7 4

Table 6-4. Technology Improvement Factors for 2015 Aircraft Relative to 1990 Technology

H c co factor factor

Generic Fuel Flow Airplane Factor factor PTBP 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo 1 .oo

NOX

PO60 0.49 0.60 0.70 PO80 0.69 0.70 0.60 P120 0.7 1 0.70 0.60 P180 0.75 0.70 0.60 P250A 0.87 0.60 1 .oo P250B 0.86 0.70 0.60 P350 0.95 0.70 1 .oo

500 0.86 0.70 0.60 700 1.19" 0.70 1 .oo 900 1.28* 0.70 1 .oo

COO5 0.69 0.70 0.60 COlO 0.75 0.70 0.60 c020 0.7 1 ' 0.70 0.60 C040 0.87 0.60 1 .oo C080 0.86 0.70 0.60 C160 0.86 0.70 0.60 * includes sizing effect

0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 1 .oo 0.70 1 .oo 0.70 1 .oo 1 .oo 0.70 0.70 0.70 1 .oo 0.70 0.70

7 5

6.4 2015 Scheduled Jet Passenger Traffic Results

The total daily distances flown for each aircraft type are shown in Table 6-5 for the case where no HSCT fleet exists. For the year 2015 scenarios, a total of 17,123 city pairs were include with flights between 1,969 cities.

Table 6-5. Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Jet Passenger Fleet (no HSCT fleet exists)

Aircraft

Total Daily

Distance (nm)

PO60 (50-69 passengers) ~ 0 8 0 (70-109 passengers) ~ 1 2 0 (110-139 passengers) ~ 1 8 0 (140-199 passengers) ~250A (200-299 passengers) ~250B (200-299 passengers) ~ 3 5 0 (300-399 passengers) P500 (400-499 passengers) ~ 7 0 0 (500-799 passengers) ~ 9 0 0 ( > 800 passengers)

1896384 4689407 8273926 14151241 9242938 6906331 9297091 8320398 3710548 3888681

The fuel burned, emissions, and global average emission indices for the projected 2015 subsonic airliner scenario, assuming no HSCT fleet exists, are summarized by aircraft type in Table 6-6.

The fuel burned and emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) are tabulated in Table E-8 in Appendix E.

7 6

Table 6 - 6 e Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices by Aircraft Type for 2015 Scheduled Subsonic Airliners if no HSCT Fleet Exists

Globally Averaged Emission Indices

F u e l NOX HC co E1 E1 E1 F i l e (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (NOx) (HC) (CO)

PO60 2.633+09 1.493+07 1.473+06 1.453+07 5.66 0.56 5.50 PO80 8.673+09 6.843+07 2.913+06 6.59E+07 7.88 0.34 7.60 P120 1.42E+10 1.043+08 8.023+06 1.25E+08 7.37 0.57 8.85 P180 2.353+10 1.733+08 5.813+06 1.233+08 7.39 0.25 5.25 P250A 2.493+10 2.153+08 1.64E+07 1.63E+08 8.64 0.66 6.56 P250B 2.103+10 1.543+08 1.39E+07 7.593+07 7.33 0.66 3.61 P350 4.323+10 4.533+08 1.523+07 1.613+08 10.49 0.35 3.72 P500 5.253+10 4.883+08 1.863+07 2.233+08 9.31 0.35 4.26 P700 3.153+10 3.613+08 5.113+06 6.843+07 11.48 0.16 2.17 P900 2.293+10 2.063+08 4.553+06 6.52E+07 9.01 0.20 2.85

T o t a l 2.45E+11 2.243+09 9.203+07 1.09E+09 9.14 0.38 4.43

A fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs has been calculated to carry 386,800 passengerslday. This passenger demand would then be displaced from the subsonic airliners; so a scenario of these modified subsonic airliner operations was calculated. projected 2015 subsonic scenario, assuming an HSCT fleet exists, are summarized in Tables 6-7 and 6-8.

The results for the

7 7

Table 6-7. Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Subsonic Jet Passenger Fleet ( SCT fleet exists)

Total Daily

Distance Aircraft (nm)

PO60 (50-69 passengers) PO80 (70-109 passengers) ~ 1 2 0 (110-139 passengers] ~ 1 8 0 (140-199 passengers) ~250A (200-299 pass, short route) P250B (200-299 pass, long route) P350 (300-399 passengers) P500 (400-599 passengers) P700 (600-799 passengers) ~ 9 0 0 ( > 800 passengers)

1896384 4689407 8273926 14115482 9242938 5395874 8864087 7836805 2216309 1578067

Tab 1 e 6 - 8. Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices by Aircraft Type for 2015 Scheduled Subsonic Airliners if 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs were in Operation"

Globally Averaged Emission Indices

A i r c r a f t ( k g / y r ) ( k g / y r ) ( k g / y r ) ( k g / y r ) (NOx) (He) ( C O )

PO60 2.63E+09 1.49E+07 1.47E+06 1.45E+07 5.66 0.56 5.50 PO80 8.67E+09 6.84E+07 2.91E+06 6.59E+07 7.88 0.34 7.60 P120 1.42E+10 1,04E+08 8.02E+06 1.25E+08 7.37 0.57 8.85

PlSO-w-hsct 2.34E+10 1.73E+08 5.81E+06 1.23E+O8 7.39 0.25 5.26 P250A 2.49E+10 2.15E+08 1.64E+07 1.63E+O8 8.64 0.66 6.56

P250B-w-hsct 1.64E+10 1.20E+08 1.16E+07 6.25E+07 7.32 0.71 3.82 P35O-w-hsct 4.12E+10 4.33E+08 1,49E+07 1.57E+08 10.50 0.36 3.80 P5OO-w-hsct 4.97E+10 4.03E+08 4.97E+07 2.42E+08 8.1 1 1.00 4.86 P700-w-hsct 1.93E+10 2.27E+08 3.89E+06 5.02E+07 11.77 0.20 2.60 P900-w-hsct 9.43E+09 8.67E+07 2.43E+06 3.32E+07 9.19 0.26 3.52

F u e l N O X H C e o E1 E1 E1

Total 2.10E+11 1.85E+09 1.17E+08 1.04E+09 8.80 0.56 4.94

1.OOE + 08 = 1.00 x lo8 *

7 8

The fuel burned and emissions as a function of altitude (summed over latitude and longitude) are tabulated in Table E-9 in Appendix E. A comparison of these results with the 1990 emission levels will be discussed in more detail in Section 7.

To illustrate the projected emission technology level, Figure 6-4 shows a plot of the emission indices for NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide as a function of altitude for the scheduled passenger jet traffic in 2015 assuming no HSCT fleet is in operation. As for the 1990 results (Figure 5-1), the NOx emission indices are lower at cruise altitudes relative to the 2-4 km altitude range since the aircraft cruises at a lower thrust setting than during climb.

n Index (grams of emission/kg fuel)

re 6-4. Emission indices for NOx, carbon monoxide, and ydrocarbons plotted as a function of altitude for the

scheduled passenger jet traffic, assuming no fleet is in operation.

7 9

6.5 2015 Cargo Results

The total daily distances for the projected year 2015 cargo fleet are summarized in Table 6-9 for each cargo size category. burned and emissions for the projected 2015 scheduled cargo scenario are summarized in Table 6-10. The calculations indicate that fuel burned by scheduled cargo aircraft will only be about 2.3% of that used by scheduled airliners. The fuel burned, emissions, and emission indices for the 2015 cargo fleet are tabulated in Table E-10 in Appendix E.

The fuel

Table 6-9. Departure Statistics for the 2015 Scheduled Jet Cargo Fleet

Total Daily

Distance Aircraft (nm)

COO5 COlO c020 C040 C080 C160

5 ton cargo) 20423 10 ton cargo) 6296 20 ton cargo) 13268 40 ton cargo) 171890 80 ton cargo) 437030

> 80 ton cargo) 606722

Tab 1 e 6 - 10. Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices for 2015 Scheduled Jet Cargo Aircraft*

Globally Averaged Emission Indices

Fuel Aircraft (kg/year)

COO5 4.13E+07 COlO l.l6E+O7 c020 2.54E+07 co40 4.57E+08 C080 1.40E+09 c160 3.7 1E+O9

co (kg/year) E1 (NO,) E1 (HC) E1 (CO)

1.49E+04 4.04E+03 1.84E+04 2.9 1E+05 2.06E+06 1.17E+06

3.38E+05 7.94 0.36 8.19 8.62E+04 7.72 0.35 7.41 2.76E+05 7.69 0.72 10.86 2.89E+06 8.56 0.64 6.34 9.87E+06 7.80 1.47 7.03 1.42E+07 9.07 0.32 3.84

Total 5.64E+O9 4.91E+07 3.56E+06 2.77E+07 8.69 0.63 4.90

1.00E + 08 = 1 .OO x log *

80

6.6 2015 Turboprop Results

The 2015 turboprop analysis was completed using the 1990 medium sized turboprop performance data for all turboprop routes in the projected 2015 OAG. applied to the data since it is uncertain how the fuel burn and emissions characteristics of these airplanes will change. analysis of future turboprop technology was not justified because the calculations for 1990 indicate that turboprops only consume 1.1 % of the global jet fuel (see section 7). summarized in Table 6-11. Turboprop air traffic between 7,171 city pairs was analyzed using 2,331 cities.

No technology improvement factors were

A detailed

The departure statistics are

Table 6-11. Departure Statistics for 2015 Scheduled Turboprop Aircraft

Total Total Average Daily Daily Route

Distance Departures Distance Aircraft (nm) (nm)

PTBP (turboprops 1 5 , 8 0 6 , 9 7 6 3 8 , 7 4 3 150

Global fuel usage by turboprops was calculated to be 4.14 x 109 kg/year, which is 1.7% of the fuel used by the projected 2015 airliners. (see Table 6-12)

Table 6-12. Globally Computed Fuel Burned, Emissions, and Emission Indices for 2015 Scheduled Turboprop Aircraft*

Globaily Averaged Emission Indices

(kglyear) (kglyear) (kglyear) (kg/year) E1 (NOXI E1 (HC) E1 (CO) Fuel NOX HC co

4.14E+09 4.42E+07 7.27E+06 2.41E+07 10.68 1.76 5.83

*l.OOE + 08 = 1.00 x 108

8 1

The fuel burned and emissions as a function of altitude (globally summed over latitude and longitude) for projected fleets of turboprop aircraft are tabulated in Table E-11 in Appendix E.

a 2

7 . Analysis and Discussion

Three-dimensional inventories of fuel usage and exhaust emissions have been calculated for the different components (subsonic, HSCT, cargo, and turboprop) of the scheduled commercial air traffic fleet for 1990 and 2015. The enormous size and three- dimensionality of the data makes it difficult to display all features of the results. Instead, in most cases, the data have been summed over one or more dimensions to produce one-dimensional plots to illustrate various properties of the emissions distribution or aircraft characteristics.

The three-dimensional character can be seen in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, which show the NOx emissions as a gray scale plot as a function of altitude and latitude (top panels) and as a function of latitude and longitude (bottom panels) for both the 1990 scheduled air traffic (jet passenger, cargo, and turboprop) (Figure 7-1) and the 2015 scheduled air traffic (assuming no HSCT fleet is in operation) (Figure 7-2). northern mid-latitudes in the 10-13 km altitude band. For comparison, a similar plot for only the HSCT fleet was shown in Figure 4-6.

In both cases, the peak emissions are calculated at

In order to understand the impact of aircraft emissions on the atmosphere, the total emissions from all aircraft sources must be considered. In this study, we have calculated those components due to scheduled commercial air traffic. Douglas calculated emissions for military, charter, and traffic not scheduled in the Official Airline Guide (intra former Soviet Union and China). The total of the Boeing and McDonnell Douglas work has been analyzed and discussed in Reference 4. It will not discussed in depth in this report.

In a parallel study, McDonnell

In this section, the results for the different aircraft fleet components which contribute to the scheduled air traffic for both 1990 and 2015 will be summarized and discussed.

8 3

30

25

-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Latitude

’

0.01 50.01 100.01 150.01 200.01 250.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+29)

J U

60

30 3 .- - 0 53

a,

-I

-30 ... ...... .............

^ ^

-6U

-90 .

-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude

0.01 50.01 100.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+29)

150.01

Figure 7-1. NOx emissions for 1990 scheduled air traffic (airliner, cargo, and turboprop) as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude) (bottom panel).

30

25

-g- 20 x v

a, 15

10

5

0

3 +-’

-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Latitude

0.01 100.01 200.01 300.01 400.01 500.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+29)

60

30

:.E2 0 5

a, 73

-J

-30 ... ...... .............

A A

-bU P

-90 ~

-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude

0.01 50.01 100.01 MoleculesNear of NOx (X 10+29)

150.01

Figure 7-2. NOx emissions for projected 201 5 scheduled air traffic (airliner, cargo, and turboprop) as a function of altitude and latitude (summed over

altitude) (bottom panel) assuming no WSCT fleet exists. anel) and as a function of latitude and longitude (summed over

7.1 Summary of Results

The annual global fuel usage and emissions which have been calculated for the individual components of 1990 scheduled air traffic are summarized in Table 7-1. those that follow, the three-dimensional inventories have been surmned over latitude, longitude, and altitude to yield the total global fuel usage and emissions. the combined scheduled passenger jet, turboprop, and cargo fleets.

For this summary table and

Also, shown in Table 7-1 are the totals for

Table 7-1. Summary of annual global fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons, and -carbon monoxide for the 1990 emission inventories.

1990 Scheduled Passenger Jet 9.08E+10 1.14E+09 1.37E+08 5.17E+08

1990 Turboprop Fleet 1.99E+09 2.05E+07 1.1 1 E+06 9.77E+06

Total 1990 Scheduled Passenger Jet, Turboprop, and Cargo Fleet 9.28E+10 1.16E+09 1.38E+08 5.27E+08

Note: NOx is given as gram equivalent NO2

Using the fuel properties and emission indices presented in Sections 3.7-3.9 of this report, the annual global emissions for carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide have been calculated from the fuel usage. 2.

These are summarized for the 1990 fleet in Table 7-

8 6

Table 7-2. Summary of annual global carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the 1990 emission inventories.

(302 H20 s o 2 (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year)

1990 Scheduled Passenger Jet and Cargo Fleet 2.87E+11 1.12E+11 7.27E+07

1990 Turboprop Fleet 6.27E+09 2.46E+09 1.59E+06

Total 1990 Scheduled Passenger Jet, Turboprop, and Cargo Fleet 2.93E+11 1.15E+11 7.42E+07

The annual global fuel usage and emissions for the component scenarios of the projected 2015 fleets are shown in Table 7-3, which include the HSCT fleets, subsonic fleets (with and without an HSCT fleet), and turboprop aircraft. water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the 2015 components are shown in Table 7-4 which uses the projected sulfur content of jet fuel as described in Section 3.9.

The annual global carbon dioxide,

The year 2015 component scenarios have been summed to produce the different permutations of scheduled commercial fleets, both with and without HSCT fleets. these are summarized in Table 7-5. Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions are summarized in Table 7-6.

The fuel usage and emissions for

Further comparisons of the 2015 results with those of 1990 will be made in Section 7-2.

8 7

. Table 7-3. Summary of annual global fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons,

and carbon monoxide for the 2015 individual component emission inventories.

Fuel NOx HC co (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year)

HSCT Scenarios:

Mach 2.4, E1=5 (500 HSCTs only)

Mach 2.4, Ek15 (500 HSCTs

Mach 2.0, EI=5 (500 MSCTs

Mach 2.0, EI=15 (500 HSCTs

only)

only)

only)

Subso nic Sce narios:

2015 Passenger Jet Fleet (no HSCT fleet exists)

2015 Passenger Jet Fleet (with 500 HSCT fleet)

2015 Cargo Fleet

201 5 Turboprop Fleet

7.64E+10

7.64E+10

7.87E+10

7.87E+10

2.45E+11

2.1 OE+11

5.64E+09

4.1 4E+09

5.00E+08

1.36E+09

4.70Ei-08

1.38E+09

2.24E+09

1 .85 E+09

4.91 E+07

4.42E+07

2.83E+07

2.83E+07

2.75€+07

2.75E+07

9.20E+07

1.1 7E+08

3.56E+06

7.27E+06

2.33E+08

2.33 E+08

2.35E+08

2.35 E+08

1.09E+09

1.04E+09

2.77€+07

2.41 E+07

Note: NOx is given as gram equivalent NO2

8 8

Table 7-4. Summary of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the 20 15 individual components of the emission inventories.

c o 2 H20 s o 2 (kg/year) (kglyear) (kg/year)

HSCT Scenarios:

Mach 2.4, EI=5 (500 HSCTs only)

Mach 2.4, E1=15 (500 HSCTs only)

Mach 2.0, EI=5 (500 HSCTs only)

Mach 2.0, E1=15 (500 HSCTs only)

Subsonic Scenarios:

2015 Passenger Jet Fleet (no HSCT fleet exists)

2015 Passenger Jet Fleet (with 500 HSCT fleet)

2015 Cargo Fleet

201 5 Turboprop Fleet

2.41 E+11

2.41 E+11

2.48E+11

2.48E+11

7.72E+11

6.62E+11

1.78E+10

1.3 1 E+ 1 0

8 9

Table 7-5. Summary of fuel use, NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide for the total scheduled air traffic scenarios for 2015.

Fuel NOx HC co (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year)

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic without an HSCT fleet 2.55E+11 2.33E+09 1.03E+08 1 . I 4E+09

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet (El (NOx)=5) 2.96E+11 2.44E+09 1.56E+08

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet (El (NOx)= 1 5) 2.96E+11 3.30E+09 1.56€+08

.32E+09

.32E+09

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet (El(NOx)=5) 2.98E+11 2.41 E+09 1.55E+08 1.32E+09

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet (EI(NOx)=I 5) 2.98E+11 3.31 E+09 1.55E+08 1.32E+09

~~ ~

Note: NOx is given as gram equivalent NO2

9 0

Table 7-6. Summary of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur dioxide emissions for the total scheduled air traffic scenarios for 2015.

co2 H20 s o 2 (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year)

Total 201 5 Scheduled Air Traffic without an HSCT fleet 8.03E+11 3.15E+11 1.02E+O8

Total 201 5 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet 9.34E+11 3.66E+11 1.18E+08 (EI(NOx)=5)

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.4 HSCT fleet (EI(NOx)=15) 9.34E+11 3.66€+11 1 . I 8E+O8

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet (El (NOx)=5) 9.41 E+11 3.69E+11 1.19E+Oe

Total 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic with a 500 Mach 2.0 HSCT fleet ’

(EI(NOx)=I 5) 9.41 E+11 3.69E+11 1.19E+Oe

9 1

7.2 Comparison between 1990 and 2015

Air traffic is projected to grow significantly between 1990 and 2015. expected to increase, even with some improvements in both efficiency and combus tor technology .

As a consequence, fuel usage and emissions from aircraft are

Fuel usage by scheduled airliner and cargo aircraft in 2015 is projected to be about three times larger than 1990 levels. emissions from scheduled air traffic are projected to increase by about a factor of two from 1990 to 2015. passenger miles are projected to increase by a factor of about six, from 1203 billion in 1990 to 6883 billion in 2015 (based on the 'lcommon" forecast described in section 2 of this report).

Global NO,

By comparison, revenue

The changes in NOx emissions are shown graphically in Figure 7-3. Emissions in 2015 from the scheduled aircraft fleet (passenger jet, cargo, and turboprop) are projected to be greater than in 1990 whether an HSCT fleet exists or not. the subsonic fleet, resulting in fewer emissions 10-13 km altitude band but adds emissions in the lower stratosphere at 18-21 km flight altitudes.

An HSCT fleet displaces some of

Figure 7-4 shows that few changes are predicted between the altitude profiles of 1990 and 2015 subsonic fleets. Approximately 60% of the NOx emissions are calculated to occur above 10 km altitude. If a fleet of 500 Mach 2.4 HSCTs is in operation, approximately 15% of the NOx emissions occur above 13 km.

9 2

I

1990 O A G Scheduled Air Traffic 201 5 Scheduled Air Traffic (no HSCT fleet exists) 2015 Scheduled Traffic with Mach 2.4 (EI=5) fleet

I

----- 20

fl

15

10

5

0 0 200 4 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 1000

NOx Emissions (Million kg/year)

Figure 7-3. Annual NOx emissions as a function of altitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without 500 Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 HSCTS.

9 3

0.0 0.2 0.4 . 0.6 0.8 1 .o

Cumulative Fraction of NOx Emissions

Figure 7-4. Cumulative fraction of NOx emissions as a function of altitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without 500 Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 HSCTs.

9 4

Plots of fuel usage as a function of latitude (summed over altitude and longitude) (Figures 7-5 and 7-6) show that the largest relative increase is in the tropics and lower latitudes. In both 1990 and 2015, most air traffic is expected to occur in the northern hemisphere.

I 1

- 1990 OAG Scheduled Air Traffic

----- 2015 Scheduled Air Traffic (no HSCT fleet exists)

201 5 Scheduled Air Traffic with Mach 2.4 (EI=5) Fleet

I I I I I

0 2 4 6 a 1 0 1 2

Fuel Burned (Billion kg/yr)

Figure 7-5. Annual fuel usage as a function of latitude=for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without 500 Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 HSCTs.

9 5

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o

Cumtilative Fraction Fuel Burned

Figure 7-6. Cumulative fuel usage as a function of latitude for 1990 OAG scheduled air traffic and projected 2015 scheduled air traffic, with and without 500 Mach 2.4 EI(NOx)=5 HSCTs.

9 6

7 . 3 Comparison of 1990 results with reported jet fuel consumpt ion

Total worldwide jet fuel consumption has been reported by the U.S. Department of Energy (Reference 13), while jet fuel consumption by civil aviation for 1990 has been published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (Reference 14). The difference between the total reported jet fuel consumption and the total jet fuel use by civil aviation provides some estimate of the military fuel use. results and those of the calculated 1990 fuel burn for each of the individual AESA component emission scenarios are tabulated in Table 7-7.

These

Table 7-7. Comparison of Calculated 1990 Jet Fuel Usage with Reported Jet Fuel Use.

Reported

(kg/y ear) Total Fuel Fraction of

Total World Jet Fuel Consumption :Ref. 13)

1.76E+11

Norld Civil Aviation Fuel Usage :Ref. 14)

1.37E+ 1 1

General Aviation 3.50E+09 1.99% (Ref. 14)

Comm. Airlines 1.33E+ 1 1 75.57% (Ref. 14)

Scheduled Airliner and Cargo Scheduled Turboprop Charter Non-Scheduled Former Soviet Union

Von-Civil Usage (Military) 3.95E+10 22.44%

Salculated Scenarios Fuel Fraction of

(kg/y e ar) Reported World Use

1.34E+ 1 1 75.98%

not included not included

1.08E+11 61.20%

9.08E+10 51.59% 1.13%

6.65E+09 3.78% 8.28E+09 4.70%

1.99E+09

14.77% 2.60E+10

In table 7-7, the scenarios for charter, military, and non- scheduled former Soviet Union were calculated by McDonnell Douglas (References 4 and 15).

9 7

Approximately 76% of the world jet fuel consumption has been accounted for in the scenarios calculated by Roeing and McDonnell Douglas for 1990. General aviation was not considered in these calculations but is reported to account for only 2% of the world usage. (Reference 14) The calculations of scheduled passenger airline, scheduled cargo, scheduled turboprop, charter, and former Soviet Union account for 81% of the jet fuel use reported by ICAO for commercial operations (Reference 14). The military scenario is calculated to correspond to 66% of the non-civilian jet fuel use (the difference between the total world jet fuel consumption and the reported world civil aviation fuel use).

This agreement is quite good considering the number of simplifying assumptions that have been made in order to make the problem computationally tractable. In all of the scenarios, the aircraft were assumed to fly according to engineering design handbook rules along great circle routes between the city-pairs without accounting for diversions due to air traffic control, weather holds, airport congestion, and fuel use by auxiliary power units. Altitudes were calculated according to optimized performance rather than "step climbs" dictated by air traffic control. In addition, the calculations used May 1990 as representative of the annual average air traffic schedule for 1990. Both commercial and military air traffic in late 1990 were perturbed by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the Gulf War.

Based on the comparisons reported in Section 5 for 1990 scheduled airline operations, (Table 5-5) , the scheduled jet passenger and cargo scenario may have a systematic error of about 9% in the fuel usage. It is much more difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the military, charter, and non-OAG-scheduled flights in the former Soviet Union. In addition to uncertainties about the fuel burn and emissions technologies for these nonscheduled operations, there are large uncertainties about the flight frequencies and the type of equipment utilized.

In addition, for the nonscheduled air traffic, generic aircraft types were used to calculate the emission inventories. As was shown in earlier, there can easily be systematic errors associated with using performance and emissions characteristics of generic aircraft in the calculations, particularly if there is large variability in the technology within a given class of aircraft. This was shown for the generic 1990 aircraft described in Section 5.4, which were carefully constructed by

9 8

linear combinations of actual aircraft performances. The errors may be even larger when such a detailed database is not available to guide the construction of the generic database. conclude at this time whether further refinements in these databases are needed, since the calculations have accounted for the majority of world jet fuel use.

It is difficult to

It is also difficult to assess the accuracy of the reported jet fuel

We believe that the DOE database for jet consumption. sources in many countries. fuel is based on refinery product output. place of diesel fuel for both ground transportation and home heating. In countries where fuel is at a premium, jet fuel may be used for a variety of purposes other than aviation; thus, the DOE reports may overestimate the worldwide jet fuel use for aviation. Similarly, we believe the ICAO numbers are derived from airline reports, the completeness and accuracy of which vary. As a result, an estimate for military use derived from the difference between the DOE total jet fuel use and the ICAO report of civil aviation use may not be valid.

These databases are compiled from a variety of

Jet fuel can be used in

A comprehensive critique of the refinery production of jet fuel and of the ICAO database would be a major project. Since the calculated jet fuel amounts ip the current emissions database account for about 78% of the reported usage (including the calculated scenarios plus the ICAO value for general aviation), it is not clear that such a study is warranted at this time.

7.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

A detailed database of 1990, projected 2015 scheduled subsonic aircraft operations, and HSCT (Mach 2.0 and Mach 2.4) scenarios has been developed. Three-dimensional data files of fuel burned and emissions (NOx, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) on a 1" latitude x 1" longitude x 1 km altitude grid were delivered electronically to the Upper Atmosphere Data Program (UADP) system at the NASA Langley Research Center.

The calculated results for 1990 scheduled air traffic have been compared to fuel use reported by the US airlines and appear to be

% Bower. en the results reported here are combined with

9 9

the non-scheduled (military, internal former Soviet Union, China, and charter) air traffic calculated by McDonnell Douglas and with the ICAO value for general aviation, the results account for 78% of the 1990 jet fuel consumption. account for aircraft emissions globally at cruise altitudes, this is reasonably good agreement.

Since the purpose of the database was to

A number of simplifying approximations have been made in order to make the calculation of a global inventory tractable. have included the following:

These

Great circle routing, rather than air traffic controlled flights lanes. Cruise climb, rather than step climb. US Standard Atmosphere temperature No special procedures, flight holds, or Flights were calculated to takeoff and between the origin and destination.

profile with no winds circling near airports.

land in the direct line

May 1990 was assumed to representative of the annual average for 1990. Fuel use by auxiliary power units was ignored. Aircraft weight was calculated for the amount of fuel required for an individual mission plus reserves. For short flights, aircraft often do not refuel at each airport and thus are flying at greater weights than considered here.

Parametric studies are planned to quantify and evaluate the effects of some of these simplifying approximations on the calculated fuel usage and emissions. Work is also planned to calculate explicitly the seasonal variation in fuel usage and emissions for one year of scheduled commercial air traffic.

7.5 Database Availability

An inventory of jet fuel burned and emissions (NOx, CO, total hydrocarbons) has been calculated for 1990 and projected to 2015 for both subsonic aircraft and supersonic aircraft. available on a 1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude x 1 km altitude grid from either Dr. Robert K. Seals (seals@eosdps.larc.nasa.gov) or Karen H. Sage (sage@uadp2.larc.nasa.gov) at NASA Langley Research Center.

This data is

The files can be accessed via an anonymous ftp server.

100

8. References

;A 1. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, High Speed Civil Transport Study: Special Factors, NASA Contractor Report 18 188 1, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1990.

2. D. J. Wuebbles, S. L. Baughcum, J. H. Gerstle, J. Edmonds, D. E. Kinnison, N. Krull, M. Metwally, A. Mortlock, and M. Prather, "Designing a Methodology for Future Air Travel Scenarios," in The Atmospheric EfSects of Stratospheric Aircraft: A First Program Report, M. J. Prather and H. L. Wesoky, Eds., NASA Reference Publication 1272, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1992.

3. D. J. Wuebbles, S. L. Baughcum, S. C. Henderson, R. Eckman, D. Maiden, M. Metwally, A. Mortlock, and F. Torres, "Report of the Emissions Scenarios Committee: Preparations for the 1993 Assessment," in The Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft: A Second Program Report, R. S. Stolarski and H. L. Wesoky, Eds., NASA Reference Publication 1293, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, March 1993.

4. D. J. Wuebbles, D. Maiden, R. K. Seals, Jr., S. L. Baughcum, M. Metwally, and A. Mortlock, "Emissions Scenarios Development: Report of the Emissions Scenarios Committee," in T h e Atmospheric Effects of Strcrtospheric Aircraft: A Third Program Report, R. S. Stolarski and H. L. Wesoky, eds., NASA Reference Publication 13 13, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, November 1993.

5 . Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 1992 Current Market Outlook, 1992.

6. McDonnell Douglas, World Economics and Traffic Outlook, Economics Research Department, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA, 1992.

7 . R. C. Miake-Lye, J. A. Matulaitis, F. H. Krause, W. J. Dodds, M. Albers, J, Hurmouziadis, K.L. Hasel, R. P. Lohmann, C. Stander, J.

. Gerstle, and G . L. Hamilton, "High Speed Civil Transport Aircraft Emissions," in The AtmospFieric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft: A First Program Report. M. J. Prather and H. L.

1 0 1

Wesoky, Eds., NASA Reference Publication 1272, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1992.

8 . C. W. Spicer, M. W. Holdren, D. L. Smith, D. P. Hughes, and M. D. Smith, "Chemical Composi tion of Exhaust from Aircraft Turbine Engines," J. Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, vol. 114, pp. 11 1-1 17 (January 1992).

9. T. F. Lyon, W. J. Dodds, and D. W. Bahr, "Determination of Pollutant Emissions Characteristics of General Electric CF6-6 and CF6-50 Model Engines," FAA-EE-80-27, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA (1 980).

10. T. F. Lyon, W. J. Dodds, and D. W. Bahr, "Determination of the Effects of Ambient Conditions on CFM56 Aircraft Engine Emissions," EPA-460/3-79POll, Naticrnal Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA (19'79).

11. 0. J. Hadaller Future Fuels,"

d A. M. Mo~menthy, "The C aracterhtks of oeing publication D6-54940, August 11989.

12. 0. J. Hadaller A. M. Momenthy, "Characteristics of Future Aviation Fuels, apter 10 in "Transpartatim and Global Climate Change," (D.. L. Gre,ene and D. I.. Sat : i, eds), American Council for an Ene -Efficienk Economy,, Wa ngton, D, C., 1993-

13. Department of Emqig, Inter onal Ei;aergy Annual B DOEEIA-02 1, ton,

14. Balashov, B., A. Smith, "ICAO Amlyses Trends in Fuel Consumption by World's Airlines," ZCAO Journal, pp.18-21, August 1992.

15. Z. H. Landau, M. Metwally, R. Van Alstyne, and C. A. Ward, "Jet Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions Database Development - Year 1990 and 2015 Scenarios," NASA CR-4613, July 1994.

.

1 0 2

9. Glossary

AESA APU ASM

ATC ATM

BCAG BMAP c o co2 EI(C0) EI(HC)

EI( NOx) FAA GAIX GE H C HSCT HSFP ICAO IS A

l b Load Factor

k::

LTO cycle M MDC MTOW NASA n m NOx

OAG OEW P&W

Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft Auxiliary power unit Available seat mile (the number of seats an airline provides times the number of miles they are flown) Air traffic control Available ton-miles (the number of tons capable of being carried times the number of miles flown) Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Mission Analysis Process Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Emission Index (grams CO/kg fuel burn) Emission Index [grams hydrocarbon (as CHq)/kg fuel burn] Emission Index (grams NOx (as N02)/kg fuel burn) Federal Aviation Administration Global Atmospheric Emissions Code General Electric Unburned hydrocarbon High Speed Civil Transport High Speed' Research Program (NASA) International Civil Aviation Organization International standard atmosphere kilogram pound Percentage of an airplane's seat capacity occupied by passengers Landing takeoff cycle Mach number McDonnell Douglas Corporation Maximum takeoff weight National Aeronautics and Space Administration Nautical mile Oxides of nitrogen (NO + N02) in units of gram equivalent NO2 Official Airline Guide Operating Empty Weight

ratt & Whitney

1 0 3

PAX RPM

RTM

TBE ton 3D

passengers Revenue passenger miles (the number of paying passengers times the number of miles they fly) Revenue ton-miles (number of tons carried times the number of miles flown) Turbine bypass engine 2000 pounds Three dimensional

104

Appendix A. HSCT City Codes

Code

AKL AMS ANC ATH ATL BAH BKK BOG BOM Bo5 BRU BUD BUE CAI m CHI CPH DFVV DHA DKR m FRA GUM GVA HEL HKG HNL JKT JNB

LAX LIM LIS LON MAD MEL MM MIA

Gitv

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND AMSTERDAM, NETHERLAND ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ATHENS, GREECE ATLANTA, GA BAHRAIN, BAHRAIN BANGKOK, THAILAND BOGOTA, COLOMBIA BOMBAY, INDIA BOSTON, MA BRUSSELS, BELGIUM BUDAPEST, HUNGARY BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA CAIRO, EGYPT. CARACAS, VENEZUELA CHICAGO, IL COPENHAGEN, DENMARK DALLASR. WORTH, TX DHAHRAN, SAUDI ARABIA DAKAR, SENEGAL DETROIT, MI FRANKFURT, GERMANY GUAM GENEVA, SWITZERLAND HELSINKI, FINLAND HONG KONG HONOLULU, HAWAII JAKARTA, INDONESIA JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA LOS ANGELES, CA LIMA, PERU LISBON, PORTUGAL LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM MADRID, SPAIN MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA MEXICOCITY, MEXICO MIAMI, FL

Code C i t v

MNL MOW MRU MSP NBO NYC OSA OSL PAR PDX PEK PER PHX PPT RIO ROM SCL SEA SEL SFO SIN SJU SNN STL m SYD TLV TPE TYO

MANILA, PHILIPPINES MOSCOW, RUSSIA MAURITIUS, MAURITIUS MINNEAPOLISET. PAUL, MN NAIROBI, KENYA NEW YORK, NY OSAKA, JAPAN OSLO, NORWAY PARIS, FRANCE PORTLAND, OR BEIJING, P. R. CHINA PERTH, AUSTRALIA PHOENIX, ARIZONA PAPEETE, FRENCH POLYNESIA RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL ROME, ITALY SANTIAGO, CHILE SEATTLEKACOMA, WA SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA SAN FRANCISCO, CA SINGAPORE SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO SHANNON, IRELAND ST. LOUIS, MO STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN SYDNEY, NSW, AUSTRALIA TEL AVIV, ISRAEL TAIPEI, TAIWAN TOKYO, JAPAN

VIE VIENNA, AUSTRIA WAS WASHINGTON, DC WAW WARSAW, POLAND YMQ MONTREAL, CANADA YVR VANCOUVER, CANADA YYC CALGARY, CANADA YYZ TORONTO, CANADA

A - 1

Appendix B. HSCT Flight Frequencies

Emission network city-pairs and daily flight frequencies for year 2015, assuming 500 active HSCTs with seat capacity of 300 and Mach 2.4. The great circle (GC) distances are also shown along with the actual path distances. Appendix C.

Waypoint routing locations are listed in

Flights G C Path From Via To per Dist. Dist.

day (nm) (nm)

Flights GC Path From Via T o per Dist. Dist.

day (nm) (nm)

AKL AKL AKL AKL AKL AKL AMS

AMS

AMs

AMS

AMS

AMs

AMS

AMS

AMS

AMS

AMS

AMS

ANC

ANC

ANC

ANC

ANC

ATH

ATH

MNL HKG

HNL HNL LAX

PPT

SIN

TYO

ATL

BOS

ccs CHI

DFW

YYC LAX

MSP

NYC

BAH SIN

HEL TYO

YMQ YYZ

HKG

LON

PAR

TPE

TYO

NYC

BAH SIN

2

12

9

1

3

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

5

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

8

1

1

4937

3826

5659

2209

454 1

4768

3812

2993

4230

3567

4262

4832

3607

3155

5669

5028

2972

3232

4397

3885

4057

4057

2975

4274

4885

5022

3827

6044

2210

4838

4769

4002

3133

4232

3876

4630

5158

4106

3248

6573

5579

3349

35 19

4947

4011

4155

4234

3045

43 18

5654

ATL

A n ,

ATL

ATL

ATL

BAH

BAH

BAH

BAH

BAH

BAH

BKK

BKK

BKK

BOG

BOM

BOM

BOM

BOM

BOM

BOS

BOS

BOS

BOS

BOS

AMS

FRA

GVA

LON

PAR

BOM

FRA

GVA

JKT

MNL

SIN

CAI

BAH CPH

DHA

NYC

BAH

GVA

NBO

PAR

DHA

AMS

FRA

GVA

LON

PAR

2

5

1

5

1

3

3

1

9

1

14

2

3

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

6

1

38 12

3997

4005

3648

3806

1302

2395

2422

3801

3976

3412

3915

4644

2918

3847

1302

3623

2446

3774

1327

2993

3 177

3185

2827

2985

4002

4215

4 147

3807

3967

1423

272 1

2673

3861

4672

3659

4463

6456

3480

2168

1423

4045

2505

4232

1441

3 133

3286

3278

2937

3101

B-1

Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dis t . Dist .

day trim) trim)

BOS SNN 2 2506 2608

BRU CHI 1 3602 3868

BRU NYC 4 3176 3240

BRU HEL TYO 1 5103 5646

BRU WQ 1 3000 3115

BUD NYC 1 3785 3895

BUE DKR MAD 2 5441 6098

CAI BKX 2 3915 4463

ccs AMS 1 4230 4232

ccs LIS 1 3508 3509

ccs MAD 2 3779 3780

ccs ROM 1 4497 4498

CHI AMS 1 3567 3876

CHI

CHI

CHI

CHI

CHI

CHI

CHI SEA

CPH BAH

CPH-

CPH

BRU

FRA

GVA

LON

PAR

ROM

TYO

BKK

LAX

NYC

1

6

2

6

2

2

13

3

1

1

3602

376 1

3806

3423

3595

4176

5435

4644

487 1

3339

3868

4030

4014

368 1

3845

4363

5622

6456

4909

348 1

CPH SEA 1 4214 4346

CPH HEL TYO 1 4700 5239

Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dis t . Dist .

day trim) trim)

DFW AMS 1 4262 4630

DFW FRA 2 4455 4784

DFW LON 6 4115 4435

DFW PAR 2 4286 4595

DFW SEA TYO 3 5569 5572

DHA

DHA

DHA

DHA

DHA

DHA

DKR

DTW

DTW

DTW

DTW

DTW

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

BKX

BOM

LON

MNL

PAR

SIN

PAR

FRA

LON

PAR

SEA SEL

SEA TYO

ATL

BAH

BOS

CHI

DFW

DTW

3

2

3

7

1

5

6

2

1

2

5

5

5

3

2

6

2

2

2918 3480

1327 1441

2731 3006

4001 4690

2584 2836

3436 3677

2280 2494

3603 3827

3261 3478

3430 3616

5738 6347

5542 5801

3997 4215

2395 2721

3177 3286

3761 4030

4455 4784

3603 3827

FRA YYC LAX 3 5029 5137

FRA SFO 1 4936 4953

-2

Fl ights G C Path Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dist . Dist . From Via T o per Dis t . Dis t .

day (nm) (nm) day (nm) (nm)

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

FRA

GUM

GUM

GUM

GVA

GVA

GVA

GVA

GVA

GVA

GVA

HEL

HKG

HKG

HKG

HKG

HKG

DKR

BAH

HEL

MNL

TYO

TYO

TYO

MIA

NYC

RIO

SIN

TYO

WAS

YMQ

YYC

YYZ

HNL

SIN

SYD

ATL

BAH

BOM

BOS

CHI

NYC

YMQ

NYC

AKL

ANC

LAX

SEA

SFO

4

13

2

3

5

3

1

1

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

1

1

2

1

7

3

11

4188

3340

5 163

5543

5054

3534

3161

4062

3422

3296

2533

2869

4005

2422

3623

3185

3806

3346

3191

3565

4937

4397

6282

5625

5994

4238

3402

5606

6380

5587

3590

3502

4090

3672

3297

2534

3062

4147

2673

4045

3278

40 14

3386

3258

3742

5022

4947

6590

5998

6306

HKG

HKG

HNL

I-INL

HNL

HNL HNL

HNL HNL HNL HNL HNL

HNL

HNL

HNL

HNL

JKT

JKT

JNB

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

SYD

TYO YVR

AKL GUM

LAX

MNL

OS A

PHX

PPT

SEA

SEL

SFO

SYD

TPE

TYO

YVR

BAH

TYO

RIO

H N L A K L

YYC AMS

CPH

YYC FRA

TYO HKG

HNL

11

8

12

5

31

5

14

1

7

4

7

18

1%

4

54

5

9

5

1

9

2

1

3

7

31

3981 4532

5533 5919

3826 3827

3296 3297

2216 2217

4597 4598

3557 3558

2528 2529

2383 2384

2324 2324

3950 4602

2080 2081

4409 4420

4394 4395

3311 3311

2347 2348

3801 3861

3145 3288

3859 3859

5659 6044

4832 5158

4871 4909

5029 5137

6282 6590

2216 2217

B - 3

F l i g h t s G C Path From Via To per D i s t . D i s t .

day (nm) (nm)

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LAX

LIM

LIS

LIS

LIS

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

HNL MEL

OSA

YYC PAR

TYO PEK

PPT

LIM N O

NYC ROM

HNL SYD

TYO TPE

TYO

MIA

ccs NYC

RIO

ANC

A n ,

BOS

CHI

DFW

DHA

DTW

LAX

MIA

MSP

7

4

3

2

1

3

1

1

7

8

35

3

1

2

2

1

5

6

6

6

3

1

7

7

1

4726

6884

4955

4910

5415

3567

5470

5504

6508

5893

4723

2276

3508

29 16

4163

3885

3648

2827

3423

41 15

273 1

326 1

4726

3835

4870

7017

4956

5189

5876

3568

5757

5884

6637

5912

4723

2302

3509

2917

4337

401 1

3807

2937

3681

4435

3006

3478

4870

3842

3476 3910

B - 4

F l i g h t s G C Path From Via To per D i s t . Dis t .

day (nm) (nm)

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

LON

MAD

MAD

MAD

MAD

MAD

MAD

MAD

MEL

MEX

MIA

MIA

MIA

NYC

DKR RIO

SEA

SFO

BAH SIN

SJU

STL

IIEL n o WAS

YMQ

YVR

YYC

YYZ

DKR BUE

ccs MEX

MIA

NYC

RIO

S JU

HNL LAX

MAD

FRA

LIM

LON

27

2

1

3

8

4

1

11

6

2

1

1

7

2

2

2

2

5

3

2

4

2

4

3

7

2990 3053

4993 5347

4156 4307

4649 4778

5868 6689

3633 3634

3638 3825

5175 5754

3184 3241

2817 3153

4090 4286

3786 3916

3079 3323

5441 6098

3779 3780

4892 4893

3834 3835

3109 3124

4395 4591

344-4 3443

6884 7017

4892 4893

4188 4238

2276 2402

3835 3842

Flights G C Path Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dist . Dis t . From Via To per Dis t . Dist .

day (nm) (nm) day (nm) (nm)

MIA

MIA

MIA

MNL

MNL

MNL

MNL

MOW

MRU

MRU

MSP

MSP

MSP

NBO

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

MAD

PAR

SCL

B N 1

DIIA

HNL

SYD

NYC

SIN

TPE

AMS

LON

SEA TYO

DOM

AMS

ATH

BOG

BRU

BUD

CPH

FRA

GVA

HEL

LIS

LON

2

2

2

1

7

5

3

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

5

1

1

4

1

1

13

4

1

2

27

3834

3976

3592

3976

400 1

4597

3380

4037

3013

4602

3607

3476

5154

2446

3155

4274

3847

3176

3785

3339

3340

3346

3565

2916

2990

3835

3989

3690

4672

4690

4598

3920

4208

3014

4698

4106

39 10

5343

2505

3 248

4318

2168

3240

3895

348 1

3402

3386

3732

2917

3053

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

NYC

OSA

OSA

OS A

OSL

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

PAR

MAD

MOW

OSL

PAR

ROM

SEA SEL

SNN

STO

ROM TLV

SEA TYO

WAW

HNL

LAX

SIN

NYC

ANC

ATL

BOM

BOS

CHI

DFW

DHA

DKR

DTW

YYC LAX

5

2

1

12

10

5

2

1

2

21

1

14

3

7

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

6

2

2

3 109

4037

3 192

3 148

3704

5974

2669

3395

4920

5844

3695

3557

4955

2668

3192

4057

3806

3774

2985

3595

4286

2584

2280

3430

49 10

3 124

4208

3341

3216

3740

6775

2723

3549

5200

6229

3786

3558

4956

2843

3341

4155

3967

4232

3101

3845

4595

2836

2494

3616

5 189

B - 5

Flights G C Path From Via To per Dist . Dist .

day (nm) (nm)

PAR MIA 2 3976 3989

PAR NYC 12 3148 3216

PAR DKR RIO 2 4956 5311

PAR SJU 8 3733 3725

PAR BAH SIN 1 5783 6519

PAR HEL TYO 5 5239 5798

PAR WAS 3 3343 3405

PAR WQ 6 2984 3317

PAR YYZ 1 3248 3461

PDX SEL 3 4566 4728

PDX

PEK

PER

PHX

PPT

PPT

PPT

PPT

PPT

PPT

RIO

RIO

RIO

RIO

RIO

TYO

TYO LAX

TYO

HNL

AKL HNL

LAX

SFO

SYD

GUM TYO

DKR FRA

JNJ3

LIM LAX

LIS

DKR LON

3

1

3

1

1

7

3

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

4177

5415

4287

2528

2209

2383

3567

3649

3301

5096

5 163

3859

5470

4163

4993

4178

5876

4288

2529

2210

2384

3568

3650

3302

5665

5606

3859

5757

4337

5347

Flights G C

day (nm) From Via To per Dis t .

RIO MAD 3 4395

RIO DKR PAR 2 4956

RIO DKR ROM 2 4949

ROM ccs 1 4497

ROM CHI 2 4176

ROM NYC LAX 1 5504

ROM NYC 10 3704

ROM DKR RIO 2 4949

ROM HEL TYO 1 5343

ROM YYZ 1 3823

SCL MIA 2 3592

SEA CPH 1 4214

SEA TYO HKG 3 5625

SEA HNL 4 2324

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEL

SEL

SEL

SEL

LON

SEL

TYO TPE

TYO

SEA DTW

m SEA NYC

PDX

4156

4503

5264

4131

5738

3950

5974

4566

SEL SEA 1 4503

SEL ' SIN 1 2511

SEL YVR 2 441 I

-6

Path Dist . (nm)

459 1

5311

577 1

4498

4363

5884

3740

577 1

5962

403 1

3690

4346

5998

2324

4307

4678

5320

4132

6347

4602

6775

4728

4678

2573

4455

Flights G C Path Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dis t . Dis t . From Via To per Dis t . Dist .

day (nm) (nm) day (nm) (nm)

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SIN

SJU

FRA

TYO HKG

HNL

LON

PPT

HNL SYD

TYO TPE

TYO

AKL BAH AMS

BAH ATH

BAH

DHA

BAH FRA

GUM

BAH LON

MRU

OSA

BAH PAR

SEL

TLV

TPE

TYO

BAH VIE

LON

1

11

18

3

1

2

5

29

3

2

1

14

5

3

1

8

1

7

1

1

1

2

32

1

4

4936

5994

2080

4649

3649

6448

5607

4439

4541

5669

4885

3412

3436

5543

2533

5868

3013

2668

5783

2511

4293

1740

2893

5232

3633

4953

6306

208 1

4778

3650

6501

5628

4440

3838

6573

5654

3659

3677

6380

2534

6689

3014

2843

65 19

2573

4641

1732

2947

6302

3633

S JU

S JU

SNN

SNN

STL

STO

SYD

SYD

SYD

SYD

SYD

SYD

SYD

SYD

TLV

TLV

TPE

TPE

TPE

TPE

TPE

TPE

TPE

TPE

TYO

MAD

PAR

BOS

NYC

LON

NYC

GUM

I-IKG

HNL

FINL LAX

MNL

PPT

I-INL SFO

TYO

RON NYC

SIN

ANC

HNL

TYO LAX

MRU

TYO SEA

TYO SFO

SIN

TYO YVR

AKL

2

8

2

2

1

1

1

11

18

7

3

1

2

20

2

1

2

4

8

1

1

5

2

1

5

3444

3734

2506

2669

3638

3395

2869

398 1

4409

6508

3380

3301

6448

4226

4920

4293

4057

4394

5893

4602

5264

5607

1740

5 176

4768

3443

3125

2608

2723

3825

3 549

3062

4532

4420

6637

3920

3302

650 1

4385

5200

4641

4234

4395

5912

4698

5320

5628

1 742

524 1

4769

-7

Fl ights G C Path From Via To per Dist . Dist .

day (nm) (nm)

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

TYO

HEL

HEL

SEA

HEL

SEA

SEA

HEL

HEL

SEA

SEA

HEL

GUM HEL

SEA

YVR

AMs

ANC

BRU

CHI

CPH

DFW

DTW

FRA

HNL

JKT

LAX

LON

MSP

NYC

PAR

PDX

PER

PPT

ROM

SEA

SFO

SIN

SYD

WAS

YVR

YYZ

1

8

1

13

1

3

5

5

54

5

35

11

2

21

5

3

3

2

1

9

29

32

20

6

9

2

5028

2975

5 103

5435

4700

5569

5542

5054

3311

3 145

4723

5 175

5 154

5844

5239

4177

4287

5096

5343

4131

4439

2893

4226

585 1

4050

5557

5579

3045

5636

5622

5239

5572

5801

5587

3311

3288

4724

5754

5343

6229

5798

4178

4288

5665

5962

4132

4440

2947

4385

6129

4053

5858

From Via

VIE BAH

WAS

WAS

WAS

WAS SEA

WAW

YMQ

YMQ

YMQ

YMQ

YMQ

YMQ

YVR TYO

YVR

YVR

YVR

YVR TYO

YVR

YYC

YYC

YYZ

YYZ

YYZ

YYZ

YYZ

YYZ YVR

-8

Fl ights G C Path To per Dist . Dist .

day (nm) (nm)

SIN 1 5232 6302

FRA 3 3534 3590

LON 6 3184 3241

PAR 3 3343 3405

TYO 6 5851 6129

NYC 1 3695 3786

AMS 1 2972 3349

BRU 1 3000 3115

FRA 1 3161 3502

GVA 1 3191 3258

LON 2 2817 3153

PAR 6 2984 3317

HKG 8 5533 5919

HNL 5 2347 2348

LON 1 4090 4286

SEL 2 4411 4455

TPE 1 5176 5241

TYO 9 4050 4053

FRA 1 4062 4090

LON 1 3786 3916

AMS 2 3232 3519

FRA 3 3422 3672

LON 7 3079 3323

PAR 1 3248 3461

ROM 1 3823 4031

TYO 2 5557 5858

Appendix C. HSCT Routing Table

The following table provides a list of the number of departures flown between each city pair. It also includes the waypoints (latitude, longitude) used to avoid supersonic flight over land. Great circle routes were flown between city pairs unless waypoint routing was necessary. If waypoints were used, great circle routes were flown between the waypoints.

c- 1

W 0 0 b 2

g m m 0

W 0 0 N ?

g 0 0 7

W 0 0 0, z CT) b 0 m 0

W 0 0 0 2!

2 0 b 0

W 0 0 N 2

I? 0 0 7

W 0 0 m 5

2 0 0 N

w 3

? % b o - 0

0 0

3 u 3

o z 3 m o o c u o o c o r n 0 b

5 5 5 N O 0 N o r - m * *

3 0 0 b (13 0

5 0 G 3 3 o m ocu oa3 m b 0 0

6 5 O N r - N * m

3 w 3 3 3 3 8 r ; o o o o 8 Z 8 8 8 8

0 0 0 0 r n N r n C n r n r n

z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o o o o Z 3 G i G G G

3 0 0 0 a3 0

z, m cu (13

3 0 0 m b 0

z,

3

0 0 (D

0 0 0 b 0

z, 0 cu (13

W 0 0 m 2

z, 0 0 cu

W

N

0

.r

2!

z, m m -3

W 0 0

0 51

z, 0 0 d

W b

8

5

7 0

N r- m

W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 b r - b V ) b N O O m o 0, 9 ( 1 3 ( 1 3 ( 1 3 ( 1 3 ( 1 3 * 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

3 w 3 m o

3 3 3 3 3 w w w

2

3 3 3 3 3 w w w w w w 3 3 3 3 3 3 w

m m m * m ~ o o * ~ N o o o m o o m

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o o o m o ~ m m o c o * c o r n a o r n ( 1 3 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C-2

W b

B

5

7

0

cu I- m

W 0 0 d- cu 0

5 8

9 s

cu

w w In0

m a 0 0

z z z s - L n 0 0

w w z z 2 2 0 0

w w w c u c u c u 0 0 0

7 - T-

2 2 2

z z 0 0 m m L n L n b b

z m m m L n L n L n b b b

w w w w w w - 0 0 0 0 0 w o o 0 0 0

s o 5

g E E

- 7 -

0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 O c u N c u o c u o c u O b I - b W F n l I - b m m m o m o m

w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d b - 4 - b b I - d d c u c u c u c u o ) c u Q , c u m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

w w w

W

cu 0

7

2

5 s m

W 0 0

0 z

5 0 0 d

W

cu 0

7

2

5 s

z

5

0

W 0 0

0

0 0 d

W I- d

0 z

5 cu I- m

W 0 0 -3 2

w Ln cu m m 0

3 0 L n o o o o

N O 0 0 0 0 m Q , Q , Q , Q , I- m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

u s 3 3 3

$ 5 5 $ 5 5 5 5 2 z 2 - 2 8 8 8 m o m o m

c u c u c u

w w w w w w w w w w w w LnLnLnoLnoLnoLnooo c u c u c u O c u 0 c u O c u b d b m m m o m o m o m I - b I - m m m a m a m a m L n L n L n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 - 0 0 0 0

% 0

G w 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m L n m L n u J o L n L n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a I - b b b a b I - c u d - t b d b d d

3 0 0 b 0 0

s 0

G 3 0 0 0 In 0

5 0 b b

3 0 0 Q, 0 0

5 52 In

c-3

W 0 0 0 a 0

5 0 m 0

3 3 3 w 0 0 0 0 O O O d O b W b u ) C D m L n 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 . 5 0 0 0 0 L o m u ) In - 7 - 7

3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o C D o ( o L 0 u ) L n O u ) O 0 0 0 0 0 0

z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b b a b a

5 5 g 5 G G Z ? d d d d d d

3 3 3 w 3

0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O O O d O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r n W c u d r n b b b b b b b o o L n 0 0 ( D C D C D C D C D C D C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

z z o z z 0 o o u ) o O O O d O a w a ; ; ; * m c u G

W 0 d

0 8

5 d a cu W Ln cu 0 0 0

5 T

z? W 0 0 d cu 0

5 cu d 0

W 0 0

0 ?

5 0 0 d

W

cu 0

T-

s1!

5 s 0

3 0 0 b CD 0

5 0

G 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m c n c r , u ) o o o o 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 * ; ; ; u ) u ) d

3 3 3 3 %

0 0 0 0 0 b - - a 3

0 0 0 0 m o c u c u c u c u m a a c o a O b b b b 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 m m m u ) 9 - 3

w w 0 0 0 0

5 5 s s 0 0

zGzs c u o c u o b C f J b c u 0 o m o

w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * b d b c u o ) c u m 0 0 0 0

w w w w w 0 m 0 u ) o 0 cuocuo 0 m o m 0 co m a m a 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 0 z 3 z 3 0 - 0 - 0 u)

w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * d d d d b b d b d b u ) l n m u ) 0 u ) 0 0 0 0 0 0

W 0

3 0

3 0 0 0 CO 0

z m

3

3 0 0 m b 0

W 0 0 b $?

3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 b o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a b b b b b b r n b 0 0 0 - c o w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0

w 3 3 b o o

3 3 3

i5 % G G G

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 w 3 3 3 3 3

b o o 0 c o ~ 0 0 c o 0 0 o o o m o

z z z z z z 0 0 0 . o c o c o

L O m m

c u o o 0 z z z 0 0 0 0 0 w o o 0 m o o o m o o 0 0 0

0 0 0 m o o 0 c u o o o c u o o 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m b m m b c u m m m m b m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 822

w w 0 0 0 0 2 3 Y -

5 % m o b o o c u

w w 0 0 0 0 c u N c u m

c-5

W 0 b b m 0

z 0 0 s1

3 8

$ 5

w w 0 0 b b

0 0

b b c o c o c u c u w w m m c u c u o m o m 0 0

5 5 7 7

z z w w 0 0 0 0 b b c u c u 0 0

5 5 c u c u b b o m

5 5 5 5 c u c u c u ~

3 w w 3 3 3

g E E o 0 0

c u b b m o o d

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a 3 Q ) O b b m a a

5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 b b b b b G 3 w w 3 3 3 3

b o o b

O - ~ o 0 0 0 o c u c u o o o o m c u c u C D w ( D 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 b a 0

5 G 3

0

0 0 0 m 0

5 0 b b

w 3 0 0 0 0 c o w b W 7 -

5 5 o m a b b m w w 0 0 0 0 m c o 2:

5 5 ; ; ; 8 L o b

w w 0 0 0 0 c u c u 2:

5 5 0 0 c u m b m

w w 0 0 0 0 m u ) 3 9

5zo 0 0 cuo b c u

W 0 3 gr!

8 m cu 0

W 0 0 m m 7

g 0 m cu W 0 0 m ?

g 0 0 cu W 0 0 cu gr!

2 0 0 .r

W 0 0 b 2

Q 0 0

w w 0 0 0 0 c u m 2 2

z o z o 0 0 0 0 c u c u

W 0 0 m (0 7

W 0 0 In 2

5 0 m 0

W 0 0 m 9

zo 0 0 0

6-6

B 0 a, 0 0

z 0 0

u) -c

2 0

0

z 0 0 a3 u)

3

3 0 0 u) UJ 0

i5 0 UJ v

3 3 0 0 0 0 u)o O b - 0

5 5 ' 5 % 0 0

w w 3 3

!2$ - 0

0 0 0 0 d o 0 0 b b m u )

- b

i5f, ? % N U J

W w w 3 3

g z - 0

z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in o m a 3 0 - a UJ 7

I? 0 L n cu

5i5 o m 0 0

l o a 3 o c u 0 0 0 w

5 5

3 0 0 a 7 -c

5 0 0 m

3

2 0 0

7

f, 0 Lo N

W

9 0 5 ;?;

8

N

W In

0 0

W 0 0 d cu 0

3 3 w 3 3

In: E b b 0 0 b o o 0 0 - t o o

CDw 0 0 0 0 0

2 5 5 5 5 0 0 o m N r n

3 w 3 w 3 3 3 w 3

0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 c u 0 0 c u 0 a 3 c J ) O O a J ~ O m o b u ) i n p c . . - N

2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 i 5

3 w 3 u 8 3 3 w ~

0 0 c u 0 0 0 N 0 0 b c u c u O b b c u 0 0 o w 0 d d b 0 d n l

0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 c o r n 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 o o o c u o o o K i o

g 8 2 0) b) a, 2

5 2 0 0 m u ) - 0

c-7

3 0 0 P- (D 0

5 G 3

0

0 0 0 m 0

5 0 P- d

3 0 0 m 0 0

5 0

;;

3 0 0 0 a3 0

Z

N (D

8

3 0 0 m b 0

5 0 m (L,

3 0 0 0 P- 0

5 0 cu (D

3 0 0 m (D 0

5 sr 3 (D

0 0 Ln d 0

5 0 co In

z z 0 0 o m N c u ( D w

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m P-b 0 0

5 5 0 0 m m C D C O

5 5 0 0 c u c v ( D ( D

5 5 2 2 0 0

z z z z c o r n 0 0 0 0 0 0 G G Z Z

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b h m m P - b b W l n b ( D ( D ( D ( 0 ( D ( D c o ( D w ( D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

z 5 . 5 5 5 5 G G G Z Z G

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o m m o o o m m o m m d d m m m d d m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o r n 0 0

5?3 o m N c u coco

3 3 0 0 0 0 m l n b b 0 0

5 5 0 0 m o ( D w

3 0 0 m m 0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b P c a 3 0 P - b P - c o a 3 b b d m m d d d l n l o d

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m c n c n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

!2 0 0 N

3 3 w 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 % g % g g % o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

E 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0

w w 0 0 b b b b L o w 0 0

w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 c u b b ? 2 g a 2 2 85151 o w w - 0 0

w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 b a a w o o

g 5 5 0 0 0 0 C o a . 3 0 0 0

W 0 0 d 2

3 c) a 0

W 0 0 Lo Lo 7

3

tu3

0 Lo cu

0 0 0 0 w b L o c o - 0

332, 0 0 0 - N b

w 3

2 %

g 5 2 % w 3

0 0 0 0 N O

0 0

0 0 0 0 bln b o - 0

g 5 0 0 0 0 o w

Zoz, 0 0

L o w - 7

5 5 0 0 b b b b

5532, S G G 0 0 0

s b 0 0 0

5 3

3 3 *

0 0 0 0 m a 0 0 0 0

z , z , 0 0 - ( 9 lob

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o w 0 0

5 5 0 0 b W b b

3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) w b ) 0 0 0 0 0 0

z, z,zo 7 851 0

Lo ( 9 L o

3 8 0

0 0

3 8 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w o o ( 9 o 0 O O W a J w 0 u ) L o o L o Lo m L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 3 3 3

c-9

3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m l n 0 0 0

w w W 0 0 0 b b b b b b o m m 0 0 0

5 z z L o r n b b b m a , a, N c u cu w w w c o r n v) c u c u cu o m o o m m 0 0 0

5 z z 7

z z z z z

w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b b c u c u cu 0 0 0

z 5 5 5 0

P

: Z : z % ! s 5 % : 0 c u c u v) b b a, o m m

o o o c u o o o o c u o O W O b - W W b - v ) ~ o a , ~ ) o ) ~ ~ a , m l - o o o i ; o o o o o

3 0 0 b W 0

i$ 0

G 3 0 0 0 v) 0

5 0 b b

5 $ 0 0 Z G

3 3 3 3 3 w

w W W b l n Z

0 o o o o c u 0 o o o o v ) b b b v ) O O

0 0 0 0 0

z z z z z 5 Q Q O O W 0 0 0 0 0

T- Q b Z =F * G v ) * m

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o m o o o o m o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

i $ i $ $ z z z r n b b a , v ) v ) a , a 3 a , W O c o a , a , Q Q Q d - b b o b v ) * d - b b b b b b v ) * b b * * b Z ; s :

6-10

3 3

5 8

o w o m c o b

g z 0 0 O b c 9 0

3 3 0 0 0 0 N O O N 0 0

0 2 0 0 c 9 0 b b O N

8 3 0 0 0

0 0 0 lo m m 0 0 0 0 0 0

3:

g 3 (I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cu c u c u

3

E

g

0 0

0

0 0 d

3 3 o w o m b b (Do 0 0

5 5 7 % 0 0

3 w 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 b * b W N ( D 0 0 0

5 5 5 5p$2: 3 w 3 3 c o y a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

iz 0 0 0) 0 0

g 0,

3

B

m

0 0 m

0 00 m 3 0 0 In W 0

5 sr 3 (D

0 0 0 pc 0

5

E

z,

0 cu (0

0 m pc 0

0 0 W

3 0 0 0 QJ 0

?5 0 cu W

W cu m 0

P

5

3 3

E P

5 5

(r

co 0

0 0 0 0 m a

0 0 0 0 m m

6-11

W 0 0 43 0 7

w 3 3 w 3

2 E E 2 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I n c n b , v ) o )

z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m I n m m w

w w w w w o c u c u o c u 0 v ) I n o w L n o o I n o 2 2 2 2 2

3 a

i5 2 3

0

0 0

v)

0 0 In 6 0

z,

3

0 43 In

0 0 In CD 0

g 0 CD 7

3 0 0 0 b 0

5 0 cu CD

3 0 0 v) b 0

Z 0 0 m 0

3 0 0 0 43 0

z, 2 m

w w w 0 0 0

InInln - 0 0

E X t A

wz5 % E 2 o o m

w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c u o o c D z g g 2

m z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w m L n - 0 0 0

w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O b b c u 0 0

2 o ) m y

i ? Z Z 5 : o z z z 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a c u b z 2 s i 2 z

2 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 m c u c u b 0 0 0 0

w w w 0 0 0 0 0 6 b I n b

512s

w w 0 0 0 0 b b zz U J m 0 0 m m o m 0 0

3 w w

8 Z Z

0 0 0 0 0 0 b, w v )

g K9

3 3 3 3 w w

W ' D I n C D Z Z

0 0 0 - 0 0 In c v c u

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 b I n I n

0 0 0 0

w w w w w 3 Z 3 3 % : S w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w43043InQ) W O O b O 6 6 I n 0043000 0 v ) v ) C D I n I n I n C D v - - r o - - o 0 0 0 0 0 . r T - ~

c-12

W 0 0 b 2

g 0 0 0

W 0 0 cu m 7

g 0 0 7

W 0 0 m 12

g 0 0 cu W 0 0 m 2

g 0 m cu W 0 0 d 12

8 m cu m

W 0 0 d 12

g 0 m 0

W 0 0 In 12

0 0 cu

W 0 0 0 Q) 0

5 0 m 0

W 0 d b m 0

5 c m

w w w 3

m y d m 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 O O d O

w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ) W b Q)

s i ? ? 2

W 0 0 Q)

0,

5 0 Q) 0

W 0 0 b ?

5 0 0 m

W s 0

W W 0 0 0 0 d d

tu 12 0

W w 3 3

m c m b ) 2 0 b o o 0 - 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

5 $ z G G G

w w w 3 z

m m c o o o , ?

t u 0 0 2 0 m cu

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m m 0 0 0

5 5 5

3 w w w 3 w 3 3

b) b d b b ) Z b b t ? ? ? $ o o o C D C D

5 5 2 5 5 5 % $ 0 o o o o m ~ ~

0 0 0 0 0 b o O b b ocu d d d

3z2

0 o o o o l - 0 0 0 o o o o c u o o

0 o m m o m m m o m m d w d

c-13

3 0 0 co 0 0

z 0 0 a3 d-

3 0 0 b CD 0

3 3 g a g 0 0 0 0

0 0

5 5 0 , z m m

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b o r n 0 C D m o m 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 6) 0 0

5 z 3 3 m

0 0 0 0 OCD m o 0 0

z z 0 0 0 0 b o 3 d - d -

3 0 0 6) 0 0

5

3

B

0

m .r

0 0 m

z 0 0 co m

3 0 0 LD 0 0

5 0 CD 7

3 0 0 0 b 0

2- 0 0 cu co

3W O N o m In0 b d - 0 -

5 5 0 - m a a m

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gt: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O b O b O b b 006) m C D m C D m w C D

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0

5 5 0 0 0 0 C D C D

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m d - d - 0 0

5 5 0 0 c o c o m m

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m c o c o 0 0

5 5 0 0

c o c o - 7

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 0

5 5 2 2 3 3

0 0

0 0 0 0 m m p z b 0 0

5 5 0 0 o m (Do

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o c o

5 5 s f s f m o

2s

5 5 z 9 3 3

0 0 6 ) C D 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 m m d - d - 0 0

5 5 0 0 c o c o m m

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m C D C D 0 0

5 5 0 0 C D C D - 7

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 0

5 5 0 0 c u c u C D C D

3 3 0 0 0 0 m m b b 0 0

g 5 0 0 m m C D C D

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o c o 0 0

5 5 2 % o m

3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ) 6 ) 6 ) 6 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 z z z : 3 3 3 3 3 m m m m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ) m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 ~ h h h h

3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b b b b C D C D C D C D C O 0 0 0 0 0

C-14

Appendix D. HSCT Mission Profile Methodology

The aerodynamics performance programs are able to provide HSCT performance for a pure supersonic or a pure subsonic mission. A method was developed to accommodate the city-pair routes in the Emissions Study Network which consist of routes with multiple mixed subsonic and supersonic segments. The method takes six subsonic and supersonic mission profiles of varying range and uses regression analysis to develop generalized performance for each mission segment as a function of weight or some in some cases an average is used. A summary of the

Taxi-Out Time: .167 (hr) Distance: 0 (n miles) Fuel Burn Rate: Average of 6 data NOX: Average of 6 data points for

parameters by segment

points (lbs/hr) supersonic descent segment

are:

(lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersoiiic descent segment (lbhb of fuel)

Take-off & Subsonic Climb Speed: linear function of initial climb weight (n miles/hr) Time : Di stance/S peed (hr) Distance: linear function of initial climb weight (n miles) Fuel Burn: linear functioii of initial climb weight (lbs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points for supersoiiic climb segment (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic climb segment (lb/lb of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersonic climb segment (lb/lb of fuel) Elid Altitude: Average of 6 data points (ft)

Super sonic Speed: linear function of initial climb weight ( n miles/hr) Time: Distance/Speed (hr) Distance: logarithmic function of initial climb weight (n miles) Fuel Burn: linear function of initial climb weight (Ibs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points for supersonic climb segment (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic climb segment(lb/lb of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersonic climb segment (Ib/lb of fuel) End Altitude: Average of 6 data points (ft)

C 1 i m b

Supersonic Cruise Speed: Average of 6 data points (n miles/hr) Time: Distance/Speed (hr) Distance: Total distance minus climb and descent segment distances (n miles) Fuel Burn: linear function of average cruise weight (lbs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points (lbhb of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points (lb/lb of fuel) Altitude: linear function of cruise weight (ft)

D- I

S up er s o ni c D e s ce n t Time: Average of 6 data points (hr) Distance: Average of 6 data points (n miles) Fuel Burn: Average of 6 data points (lbs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lbfib of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lbfib of fuel) Altitude: linear function of subsonic cruise weight (ft)

Subsonic Descent & Landing Time: Average of 6 data points (hr) Distance: Average of 6 data points (n miles) Fuel Burn: Average of 6 data points (lbs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel)

Taxi-In Time: .083 (hr) Distance: 0 (n miles) Fuel Burn Rate: Average of 6 data points (lbs/hr) NOX: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel) CO: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lbfib of fuel) HC: Average of 6 data points for supersonic descent segment (lb/lb of fuel)

Reserve Fuel Fuel: linear function of taxi weight (lbs)

The parameters are calculated in a similar manner for a subsonic mission without the supersonic climb and descent segment, and the appropriate data for the subsonic cruise segment.

For each city pair route in the Emissions Study Network, a set

The mission landing weight is set of segments were developed to fit within the overland and overwater points along the route. equal to the operating empty weight + payload + reserve fuel. The take-off weight is set equal to the maximum take-off weight. The model iterates to solve for the take-off weight required to perform the mission and solves for the relevant mission parameters: time, distance, fuel, altitude, and emissions for each mission segment.

The resulting performance for the example discussed in the city pair routing section (Frankfurt - Bangkok) is shown in the following table. excess of the 5,000 nautical mile design range of the Emission Study Airplane, thus requiring a stop in Bahrain.

In this example, the altered path distance is in

D-2

Table D-1. Mission Profile for FRA-BAH-BKK

Cumulative End Cumulative S e g m e n t D i stance Altitude (ft) Fuel (lb)

( a m ) Taxi -out (FRA) 0 0 2933 Subsonic climb 41 3 6643 1 8894 Subsonic cruise 321 37401 3542 1 Supersonic climb 542 64988 63 870 Supersonic cruise 1588 671 17 115802 Supersonic descent 1710 40561 116594 Subsonic cruise 2576 42 150 157384 Subsonic descent 272 1 0 I63 161 Taxi-in (BAH) 272 1 0 16428 1

Taxi-out (BAH) Subsonic climb Supersonic climb & descent Subsonic cruise Supersonic climb Supersonic cruise Supersonic descent Subsonic descent Taxi-in (BKK)

0 0 2933 43 34662 20258

176 35258 32635 5 89 36264 58483 832 63916 89989

3 195 68675 206042 33 17 4204 1 206834 3462 0 212611 3462 0 213731

D-3

Appendix E. Altitude Distribution of Emissions

This appendix contains the tables which summarize the different emission scenarios. For each of the scenarios considered, the fuel burned and emissions (NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons) were summed over latitude and longitude and tabulated as a function of altitude in 1 km altitude increments ( the resolution of the data set).

Cumulative fractions of fuel burned and emissions were calculated from the ground up to provide a simple way to evaluate how the emissions were distributed vertically. In addition, the effective emission index for each altitude band was calculated and tabulated.

and listed at the bottom of each table. Also, included is the effective emission index for NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons, globally averaged over all locations and altitudes.

For the charts shown, the notation 1.00E+08 is equivalent to 1.00 x 108. emission indices have units of grams of emissions per kilogram of fuel burned.

were used in the calculations. geopotential altitudes of the US Standard Atmosphere grid.

The global total of fuel burned and emissions were calculated

The emissions are in units of kilograms per year and the

US Standard Atmosphere (1976) pressures and temperatures These altitudes correspond to the

E- 1

b w w w w w w w w w b w ~ m m m m w b b ~ b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b w w w w w w w w ~ b b b b b ~ b b b i n i n m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-2

~ ~ b b b b b b ~ b b ~ b ~ b ~ b b Q ) Q ) Q ) L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-3

a m m m m m m m m m a m a m m m m a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m a a a a a a a a m m m m m m m m o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w b m m m m m m m m b o a b m m m 0 m N b o o o o o o o o o c c 3 a N n l m m m a N m b

b b b b b b b h b b b b b b b b b a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w L o - - - - - - - - N m m ~ 0 0 0 m 0 ~ a

N - - - - - - - - m m b a m m m m N o N ? u ? u ? " " u ? 9 ? " - ? 9 9 a ? Y Y Y - ? 9 ' 9 k

m a a a a a a a a m m m m a m m m o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w b m m m m m m L o m b o a b o m o o m N b

N b b b b b b b b - N N b - - - W - N - 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 ' 9 a ? Y ! @ ? " " a ? ! " "

0 0 0

U c C

0 d P .+-

a C i U U c 0

r- C

U U

0 r

0 C

L i

C T

s U r r - Q

; s E

c

C

5

a 3 a c c .- - w- 0 S 0 0 S

.- c

z m 0 m fn a 0 U C

c 0

.-

.-

.- 3 E W

2 % L L > 0

a ) b b b b b b b b b b b a m m m a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

b a a a a a a a a a b b m m * b m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a ) b b b b b b b r - b a ) a ) a w b b m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

0 m m m m m m m m m O o a ) a w a b ~ b - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w L L l w w w w w w w w w w w w m c u o o a - o a m - c u a ) m c u m m m F . m - c u c u c u c u c u n l c u c u w c u c u d - o m m m * - 9 ? t a ? o ? ? U ? k ? a ? " 9 a ? 9 9 k ? - ?

E-6

m W W W C D m m * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w c n c n b c n c n - = t N ( o

m c n L n L n m b m c ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w c o o c n b m m m o

m - - - - c o Q ) m " ~ C ' ? L O S c 9 9 0

+ + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w c o ~ - O - O O ~

3"LDSc9d: : n i N m . a m m -

E-7

L D b b b b b b b b b b b * m m m a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o o ( u - m m m d N a 3 m m a m a c n m o b ?-?;"y?"-- k k ' N . ? ? c ? ? ? 9 T-- 7 - c i c i c i b r n K n - - - ( u C 9 v

b c o c D c D c D a c D a a a b b * * * * m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w b - * m * ( u m b ( u * m m ( u a ( u b ( u ~ ( u 9 ? ? ? - ? 9 9 7 ? ? " ? k a ? ' N . c ? 9 o! ( u d * * * d d m d * ~ - - - ( u ( u ( u T i -

a 3 b b b b b b b b b a 3 a 3 d d b d m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

E-8

a J b b b b b b b b b a J a Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w - m - c o m m c o o T t o m w " a ? 9 @ ? " ' 9 9 ? k ' 9 9 - m m m b b b b b b b - c i

c o b b b b b b b b b c o a J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E-9

c n a - a o c n o b - - o b

- - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 " " c y k 9 9 3 3 9 3 c y 7

a b b b b b b b b b b a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w m o ~ m b m m c n o a c u a b c u b a b o b a m - c q @ j d d + + + + + + + o i -

a b b b b b b b b b c n a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + +

o m m m m m a c n a c n o o - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w c n m c u o - - b m a m b 6 b ~ b o a m a o a m o -

E-10

a, s c .- - c a Y- O c 0 0 c 3

L L

.- c

(d u) (d

a ( D ( D a a ( D ( D ( D ( D w ( D a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + +

( D m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w m * m d - c o ( D O - O a a - - 7 l - v - 7 - 7 - C q n J ( D 4 ? 9 ' 9 k k k 9 5 4 0 Y

( D ( D ( D a w ( D a Q ( D a a b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + +

a a m a b b b m a a m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w w w w w cuooc3cu(D(Do - m a * d c Y O b N a m y - d N

E-11

o w ( D w w ( D ( o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w d ' c o c o b m m m b

a ) a c u c u m c u - c u ?C"?C99"90!

w ( D w w w m * m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w C n m o m b c u m a ) l - Y ? ? t ? C " ? c i - m - - * - m

( D ( D ( D ( D ( D ( D m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + + w w w w w w w w C D m a m c u m m - b O C o b a ) ( D C n O C u N ' 9 " ? t t t

E-12

Appendix F. 3-Dimensional Scenario Data Format

The three dimensional emission scenario data files calculated by Boeing were delivered to NASA Langley electronically in the following format:

i, j , k; fuel(lb/day); NOx(lb/day); CO(lb/day); HC(lb/day)

Only non-zero values are included in the ASCII data files.

Altitude;

Index k means emissions in the band from altitude k to k+l Le. index 19 is emissions in the 19-20 km band Values run from 0 to 22

Lati tude:

Index i means emissions in the band from latitude i to i+l values run from 0 to 179

For i<=89 northern hemisphere index 0 is emissions from equator to 1 degree N

For i>=90 southern hemisphere index 90 is emissions from equator to 1 degree S index 179 is emissions from 89s-90s

Lon ei tude: Wrap all the way around the globe.

Index j means emissions in the longitude band j to j+ l values run from 0 to 359

For j<=179 east of prime meridian index 0 is emissions from 0-1E index 179 is emissions from 179E-180E

For j>=180 west of prime meridian index 180 is emissions from -180W - -179W index 359 is emissions from - lW - 0

F- 1

Appendix G. Description of Global Atmospheric Emissions Code (GAEC)

Overview

The function of the Global Atmospheric Emissions Code is to accurately calculate the distribution of emissions into the atmosphere from specific airplanes flying specific routes which are identified by origin and destination city-pairs. GAEC was developed to combine functions in two Boeing programs that constitute the standard for the calculation of emissions at Boeing and to add the capability of calculating the distribution of emissions in the atmosphere. Improvement in efficiency was necessary in order to the volume of data necessary to evaluate the global 1990 and projected 201 5 fleets. Simplifying assumptions not considered critical were required.

accommodate

The GAEC program uses files of airplane performance data and engine specific emissions data. dimensional mesh representing the atmosphere between the surface of the earth and a sphere at 22 kilometer atmosphere mesh has dimensions of one degree latitude by one degree longitude by one kilometer altitude. The program "flies" each airplane-route and calculates cumulative sums of and CO emissions for each atmospheric cell crossed enroute. Output from the program consists of cell emissions and cell indices identifying the latitude, longitude and altitude of the cell. for cells crossed by the routes are included in the output.

The program generates a three-

altitude. Each cell in the

fuel, NOx, HC,

Only data

The Global Atmospheric Emissions Code handles two types of airplane performance and route data, that of the BMAP type and that of the "non-BMAP" type. BMAP (Boeing Mission Analysis Program) is the Boeing standard for calculating airplane performance (gross weight and fuel burn rate vs. distance. The BMAP type solution uses two data files for each analysis airplane. The performance data file contains detailed performance data for a wide range of operating conditions and the route file contains all city-pairs and departure frequencies defining the routes. simplified performance and emission data for each specific route.

altitude vs. distance) for a given route

The non-BMAP solution uses a single data file containing

The non-BMAP solution not available and when

is used when detailed performance data is there are relatively few routes. All airplanes

G- 1

analyzed in this study were of the BMAP solution type with the exception of the HSCT airplanes and the Concorde.

In both the BMAP and non-BMAP solutions, the general solution procedure is the same. listed below.

The basic steps in the process are

For

1 .

2.

3 .

4.

5 .

6.

7.

each city-pair

The three letter origin and destination codes are used to identify the waypoint coordinates (latitude, longitude, and altitude) from an airport description array.

Great circle distance is calculated between the waypoints (non- BMAP analysis allows waypoints between the origin and destination).

A set of discrete coordinate points (latitude, longitude vs. distance) are generated at 20 nmi intervals along the route. These points are used to interpolate coordinates where the flight path crosses atmospheric cell boundaries.

For each flight condition, tables of altitude, fuel, fuel burn rate (BMAP type only), and emissions (non-BMAP type only) vs. distance are calculated.'

Distances to Route / Cell boundary intercept points are determined by interpolating on the step 3 data.

Performance data (airplane gross weight, fuel burn rate (BMAP type only) and emissions (non-BMAP type only) are interpolated at the route / cell boundary intercept points using the data from step 4 and step 5 .

Emissions indices (lb emissions/ 1000 lb fuel) are interpolated from the tables of emissions indices vs. fuel flow rate (BMAP type only). airplane gross weight from the coordinates at which it enters the cell to the coordinates at which it exits the cell.

The total fuel for a cell is the difference in the

G-2

General assumptions made within the GAEC following:

1 . The earth is assumed to be a sphere w 3444 nmi.

program include the

th a radius of

2. All flights follow a great circle route between city pairs or intermediate waypoin ts.

3 . Altitude does not contribute to the flight distance. Distance is calculated assuming a great circle route at sea level.

4. Prevailing wind speeds are assumed to be zero.

5 . Cruise distance is what is left over after the climb and descent distances are calculated. For short routes, an iteration is performed on cruise altitude and climb and descent distance calculations until the sum of the climb distance and descent distances is less than or equal to the total route distance. Peak altitude is then the altitude at which this distance condition is met.

6. Step cruises are not modeled. Instead, it is assumed that the airplane climbs linearly from the initial cruise altitude to the final cruise altitude over the cruise distance.

Detailed Discussion - BMAP Tvpe Analysis

The GAEC "BMAP" type solution uses detailed airplane performance data from the Boeing Mission Analysis Program (BMAP) database files. altitude vs. gross weight for climbout, climb, and descent conditions and fuel mileage (nmi/lb fuel) vs. Mach number vs. gross weight vs. altitude for cruise conditions. Additional data was added for calculating takeoff gross weight as a function of route distance, initial cruise altitude as a function of route distance and fuel burn rates and times for

This data provides time, distance, and fuel data vs.

taxi-out, taxi-in, and approach-land flight conditions.

The solution process is outlined below.

G-3

For each analysis airplane:

1 . The BMAP performance data is read from the airplane specific database file.

2. The engine performance data for the specific engine on the current airplane is read.

For each route flown by the airplane:

1 . The coordinates (latitude, longitude, and altitude) of the origin and destination city-pair are determined from the airport description array.

2. Great circle route constants are calculated for the route defined by the city-pair coordinates.

3 . A set of discrete points (latitude and longitude vs. distance from the origin) are calculated along the great circle route. These points are used for interpolation of the points where the airplane path crosses atmospheric cell boundaries. The program calculates one point every 20 nmi (minimum of 12 points, maximum of 400 points).

4. The takeoff gross weight' is calculated as a function of the route distance.

For each flight condition, the procedure is to generate tables of gross weight, fuel burn rate, and altitude vs. distance. Distances to latitude and longitude cell boundaries intercepted during the flight condition are interpolated from the discrete route point data and distances to the altitude cell boundaries are interpolated from the altitude vs. distance data. and additional coordinate data are interpolated at each of the intercept points. emissions are calculated. The emissions calculatidn process is discussed in a later section.

The airplane gross weight, fuel burn rate,

Once all the flight conditions are processed, the

Taxi-out: airport coordinates. input data and the total fuel consumed is calculated from the fuel burn rate multiplied by the time in taxi-out condition.

Coordinates for the taxi-out condition are the origin The fuel burn rate is read directly from the

G-4

Climbout: gross weight minus the weight of fuel burned during taxi-out. the climbout gross weight, time, distance, and fuel to complete the climbout to the given climbout altitude are interpolated from the tables of fuel, time, and distance vs. gross weight. is assumed constant as climbout fuel divided by climbout time. Climbout fuel and altitude are assumed to be a linear function of distance for purposes of determining routeke11 boundary intercept coordinates and performance data at the intercept points.

The gross weight of the airplane at climbout is the takeoff Given

The fuel burn rate

Climb; The gross weight of the airplane is assumed constant for the entire climb and is equal to the climbout gross weight minus the weight of fuel burned during climbout. climb) altitude is interpolated from the BMAP file data as a function of route distance. Tables of time, altitude, and fuel vs. distance are created by interpolating the climb data at the climb gross weight value. A table of fuel burn vs distance is generated from the fuel vs. distance and time vs. distance tables. The distance to the end-of- climb is interpolated from the initial cruise altitude in the altitude vs. distance table. The route/cell boundary intercept coordinates are interpolated and the performance data of gross weight and fuel burn rate are interpolated from the generated tables.

The initial cruise (end-of-

Cruise: The first step in calculating the performance for the cruise flight condition is to determine the distance to the end of cruise. The end-of-cruise distance is calculated as the route distance minus the distance to descend. It is necessary to estimate the gross weight of the airplane during descent in order to calculate the descent distance from the end-of- cruise altitude. The descent gross weight is estimated to be the zero-distance gross weight from the takeoff gross weight vs. route distance table. distance vs. altitude is generated and the descent distance is interpolated in the table from the end-of-cruise altitude and destination a1 titude.

A table of descent

Altitude is assumed to vary linearly with distance from initial cruise altitude to the final cruise altitude. Initial cruise altitude is interpolated from the table of initial cruise altitude vs. route distance. feet) and then weight increases. maximum altitude value then the cruise altitude is constant at the interpolated value.

This table ramps up to a maximum value (typically 39,000 declines with distance as airplane takeoff gross

If the route length is less than the distance to the

If the route length is greater than the distance to

6 - 5

the maximum altitude value then the end-of-cruise altitude is the maximum altitude value. The route/cell boundary intercept points are interpolated and the performance data of gross weight and fuel burn rate are calculated at the intercept points. performance data is interpolated from tables of NAM (nautical air mileage) vs. Mach number vs. altitude vs. gross weight. The Mach number and corresponding fuel mileage values are interpolated from these tables, using the altitude and gross weight at the coordinate that the airplane enters the cell. Given the distance traversed in each cell, the fuel used is calculated from the fuel mileage divided by the distance traversed in the cell. The time to traverse the cell is required in order to determine the fuel burn rate in the cell. Time is derived from the velocity (Mach relationship) and cell traverse distance and the average fuel burn rate in the cell is calculated from the fuel consumed in the traverse the cell.

The cruise

cell divided by the time required to

Descent: the entire descent and is equal to the gross weight at the end of cruise. interpolating the descent data at the descent gross weight value. table of fuel burn vs. distance is generated from the fuel vs. distance and time vs. distance tables. The route/cell boundary intercept coordinates are interpolated and the performance data of gross weight and fuel burn rate are interpolated from the generated tables.

The gross weight of the airplane is assumed constant for

Tables of time, altitude, and fuel vs. distance are created by A

Aproach and Land: Coordinates for the Approach and Land condition are the destination airport coordinates. The fuel burn rate is read directly from the input data and the total fuel consumed is calculated from the fuel burn rate multiplied by the time in Approach condition.

Taxi-in: Coordinates for the taxi-in condition are the destination airport coordinates. input data and the total fuel consumed is calculated from the fuel burn rate multiplied by the time in taxi-in condition.

The fuel burn rate is read directly from the

Emissions: Once the performance data of fuel burn rate and total fuel burn for each cell along the flight profile has been calculated, the emissions data for each cell is calculated.

Engine emissions data (emissions indices vs. fuel flow rate were obtained from the ICAO data sheets and also directly from the engine

6- 6

vendors. scale. path, the emissions indices for NOx, HC, and CO were interpolated from these emissions graphs. corrected to standard day, sea level conditions. corrected for altitude using the following relationships.

These data were fitted to linear relationships on a log-log Given the fuel flow rate at discrete locations along the flight

The ICAO emissions data is test data This data was

First the fuel flow was corrected to the test conditions:

wf(sea level) = wf / thetal.5

where

wf(sea level) = the fuel flow corrected to the sea level test c o 11 d i t i o 11

wf = the actual fuel flow rate at altitude

theta = the ratio of the aiiihieiit temperature at altitude and the temperature at sea level, standard day conditiolis

Using the wf(sea level) value, the emissions indices were then interpolated from the tables. The emissions indices corrected for altitude were calculated using the relationships below.

EICO(a1t) = EICO(s.1.) / delta ** 0.4 EIHC(a1t) = EIHC(s.1.) / delta ** 0.4 EINOx(a1t) = EINOx(s.1.) * theta * EH

EICO(alt), EIHC(alt), and EINOx(a1t) are the emissions indices at altitude

EICO(s.l.), EIHC(s.l.), and EINOx(s.1.) are the emissions indices at sea level.

delta is the ratio of the atmospheric pressure at altitude divided by the atmospheric pressure at sea level

EH is the specific humidity correction at altitude corresponding to a 60% relative humidity

G-7

The weight of emissions for each cell is then calculated from the E1 value multiplied by the total fuel consumed while traversing the cell.

Each cell's emissions and fuel burn for the current route are added to the cell totals for all routes.

The next route flown by the airplane is processed until all routes have been "flown". is written for each airplane

A file containing the cell emissions totals

Detailed Discussion - Non-BMAP Type Analysis

The GAEC "NONBMAP" type solution uses data that is far less detailed than that used in the "BMAP" performance files. solution method was developed specifically for the HSCT airplane where the performance models generate only cumulative emissions data at the end of each flight condition. distance from origin, altitude, cumulative fuel burn, and cumulative emissions (NOx, HC, and CO) at the end of each segment (climb, cruise, etc.) for each city pair flown. the origin and destination of the flight and waypoint coordinates (latitude and longitude) that define the endpoints of segments traveled enroute. Concorde which performance data.

The solution process is outlined below.

This

This data specifically gives

Each route has a city pair that define

This method was also used for the analysis of the flies few routes and for which Boeing has only rough

For each set of city pair and performance data the following steps are done.

1 .) The coordinates (latitude, longitude, and altitude) of the origin and destination city-pair are determined from the airport de scrip ti on array.

2.) The route is divided into segments defined by waypoints and city-pair coordinates. For each route segment defined by the waypoints, the following process is completed:

G- 8

a.) defined by the waypoint coordinates.

Great circle route constants are calculated for the segment

b.) from the origin) are calculated along the great circle route between the segment endpoints. These points are used for interpolation of the points where the airplane path crosses atmospheric cell boundaries. The program calculates one point every 20 nmi (minimum of 12 points, maximum of 400 points).

A set of discrete points (latitude and longitude vs. distance

c.) the distances to the route / cell latitude and longitude intercept points are calculated.

Interpolating on the discrete data from the previous step,

d.) input table of altitude vs. distance.

The altitudes at these points are interpolated from the

e.) distances to route / cell altitude intercept points from the origin are calculated. coordinate data, the latitude and longitude coordinates at the routeke11 altitude boundary intercept points are interpolated.

f.) altitude at each of the cell boundary intercept points is interpolated.

Interpolating on the input table of altitude vs. distance, the

Using the discrete route segment

Using the input table of altitude vs. distance, the value of

g.) next segment are calculated. cumulative fuel and emissions vs. distance along the route, the fuel burned and emissions dispersed within each cell traversed along the flight path is interpolated. The cell emissions for the current route are then added to the total cell emissions for all routes.

The coordinates of the routeke11 intercept points in the Using the input tables of

Checkouts

As discussed previously, the GAEC code was written to be a shortcut for the standard Boeing emissions analysis process and, as such, some basic assumptions against the standard codes BMAP and EMIT, a set of test cases were

were made. In order to validate the GAEC code

G-9

run using both GAEC and the BMAP-EMIT process. test were described briefly in Section 3 and shown in Table 3-1..

The results of the

Four routes for a particular aircraft/engine combination were analyzed by both methods using the operating conditions assumed for the global emissions calculations (no winds, International Standard Atmosphere conditions, 70% full passenger payload, 200 Ib per passenger, etc.). briefly in Section 3 and shown in Table 3-1. The table shows the total fuel burned and emissions generated for each portion of the flight segment as calculated in both the BMAP-EMIT analysis and the GAEC analysis. fuel or total emissions was less than 2% when the GAEC solution was compared to the BMAP-EMIT solution. The differences in Table 3-1 are the percentages relative to the BMAP-EMIT solutions. The most obvious discrepancy in the data is seen in the GAEC approach data where the HC and CO emissions were overestimated by 25% and NOx was overestimated by 13%. performance averaging in GAEC. uses two thrust (fuel flow) settings starting near idle and then increasing as the airplane gets closer to landing. GAEC assumes an average power setting (fuel flow) for the entire approach-land segment which results in higher overall emissions. For purposes of this analysis, when the emissions for approach were compared to the total emissions for the flight, the differences in the approach calculations were acceptable. All other differences were accepted as being well within the overall tolerances for the study.

The results of this analysis were discussed

In all of the test cases, the difference between total

This is most likely due to the approach The approach analysis in BMAP

G-10

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB NO. 0704-0188

Pubis reporting burden lor this colleCtion 01 inlormailon is estimated to average 1 hour per response mcludlng the time lor reviewing instructions searching existing data sources gathering and maintaining the data needed and COmPktlng and reviewing the collection 01 inlormation Send comments re arding this burden estimale or any olher a-t 01 thlh coltectm of intonation including suggesti-s tor reducing thls burden to Washlngton Headquarters Services Directorate ?or Inlormation Operations and Reports 1215 Jeftersan Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Ahnglon. VA 222024302. and to the Office 01 Management and Budge! Paperwork Rebuction Propct(07044l@8). Washington. Dc 2050i

I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) I 2. REPORT DATE 13. REPORTTYPE AND DATES COVERED

July 1994 Contract0 1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Stratospheric Emissions,Effects Database Development

i. AUTHOR(S)

Steven L. Baughcum, Stephen C. Henderson, Peter S. Hertel, Debra R. Maggiora, and Carlos A. Oncina

r. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 981 24-2207

3. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681 -0001

1. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES

3eport 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

C NAS1-19360 WU 537-01-22-01

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

IO. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA CR-4592

Prepared for the NASA Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft Program Langley Technical Monitor: Donald L. Maiden

2a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 45

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report describes the development of a stratospheric emissions effects database (SEED) of aircraft fuel burn and emissions from projected Year 2015 subsonic aircraft fleets and from projected fleets of high-speed civil transports (HSCT's). This report also describes the development of a similar database of emissions from Year 1990 scheduled commercial passenger airline and air cargo traffic.

The objective of this work was to initiate, develop, and maintain an engineering database for use by atmospheric scientists conducting the Atmospheric Effects of Stratospheric Aircraft (AESA) modeling studies. Fuel burn and emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx as N02), carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons (as CH4) have been calculated on a 1 -degree latitude x 1 -degree longitude x 1 -kilometer altitude grid and delivered to NASA as electronic files. This report describes the assumptions and methodology for the calculations and summarizes the results of these calculations.

aircraft emissions, ozone impact, high-speed civil transport, environment emissions inventory, atmospheric impact

29s 102